Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I signed the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities on 22nd January.

Mr. Marten: May I first express my profound disapproval of the action of the German-born lady who confused Covent Garden Market with the Common Market? Secondly, may I equally register the strongest possible protest—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the supplementary question? It is taking a very long time.

Mr. Marten: I am asking my right hon. and learned Friend whether he will register the strongest possible protest at the action of the Brussels authorities who, one and a half hours before the ink-throwing incident, arrested a group of British people who were peacefully and properly protesting against the folly of Britain entering the Common Market. Will he protest to the Belgian authorities about this?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure the House will appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the unfortunate incident at the beginning of the proceedings. I am sure

it is well understood that no person interested in the Common Market as such was involved in that incident.
As to the second part of the supplementary question, I do not think it is for me to answer. The Belgian authorities were, of course, dealing with the matter according to domestic law.

Mr. Shore: Why is it that virtually every newspaper in the country appears to have had a copy of the Treaty of Accession but that there are still no copies available to hon. Members in this House? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman put this right?

Mr. Rippon: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, throughout these negotiations there have been copies of documents which have appeared at Brussels while technically in the draft stage or even confidential. But certainly the treaty documents, which we shall publish in two parts, will be brought before the House as soon as possible. It is largely a matter of printing. Part 1 of the treaty documents—the main provisions—will be published tomorrow.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that according to what purports to be the text of part of the accession treaty, published in The Times today, it is clear that any continuation of the special arrangements for New Zealand butter imports into this country would, after 1977, be subject to the unanimous agreement of the E.E.C. Council, thus giving a veto to every other member? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Marshall, the deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, has stated that this represents an alteration of the text to which he agreed? Is this another case where the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misled this House?

Mr. Rippon: The provisions in the treaty translate into the necessary legal form the substance of the agreement which we reached on 23rd June. As I explained to the House on 24th June, the important part of the New Zealand protocol is that the principle of continuity is built into the agreement, but everybody understood that questions of quotas and prices are naturally reviewed from time to time. I also made it clear to the House that, as for the future.
when the time came to consider the continuity of the arrangements
There will have to be a general agreement between all the parties …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1971; Vol. 819, c. 1619.]
I do not think there has been any doubt about that. The way things have gone will be to the advantage of New Zealand because this is an issue which any British Government would regard as vital.
There are three issues on which we have, as it were, put down markers in the negotiations—New Zealand, sugar and fish, on which we have said that transitional arrangements are not enough. I can only repeat the assurances we have given throughout to the New Zealand Government that we shall protect the interests of the New Zealand people.

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those matters bearing on the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome for which Her Majesty's Government still consider their position to be reserved.

Mr. Rippon: The negotiations with the European Communities have now been completed and the agreements reached recorded in the instruments relating to the United Kingdom's accession to the European Communities.

Dr. Gilbert: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the United Kingdom's position is reserved with respect to no matters whatever? For example, what about the common agricultural policy with reference to hops? If he is not saying that, are we to understand that the treaty can be amended if our requirements are to be safeguarded?

Mr. Rippon: It is rather difficult to give a short answer at Question Time to such questions as the important matter raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a few moments ago. There are other matters—for example, hops—on which a draft regulation is being considered, on which we shall be consulted before anything happens. There are matters in relation to animal health, for instance, on which there are provisions for review. I think that the House would be wise to await publication of the documents, which will be brought before it as soon as possible. At that stage, we can debate all these

matters in whatever detail is necessary, at the proper time.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the congratulations of most of us in the House upon the signature of the Treaty of Accession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—of most sensible Members—but could he say whether he hopes to bring forward the necessary legislation in such a form that it will not waste the time of the House for weeks and months?

Mr. Rippon: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. It is not customary to comment on legislation before it is published.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We know that hon. Members opposite always sign blank cheques. Why are these documents not available? Why is there a delay in printing? Why can the daily newspapers and everyone else, apparently, have them while we have from the Chancellor of the Duchy the lame excuse that printing is holding things up? Did he not know 12 months ago that these documents would have to be printed, or has he only at this last moment seen them himself?

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman will remember that only last Thursday we had a debate in which an explanation was given of the circumstances in which treaties are signed, of the interval which takes place between signature and ratification and of how the necessary documents are brought forward so that the House may consider them and the necessary legislation. It will be done all in due time and with plenty of opportunity for everyone to study all the details.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the document generally known as the Luxembourg Agreement of January, 1966, or in the absence of such a copy summarise its content and effect for the information of the House.

Mr. Rippon: I have arranged for an informal translation of the text of the communiquê issued on 29th January, 1966, after a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community, to be placed in the Library of the House.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does not the text make clear that there is, in fact, no agreement but, at best, only an agreement to disagree, or what the text calls a divergence of view? That being so, was not paragraph 29 of the White Paper inaccurate in its statement on a question
where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decision should be unanimous "?
Surely nothing is established by the agreement to disagree.

Mr. Rippon: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, it is sometimes called the "Luxembourg disagreement" as well as the Luxembourg Agreement. The communiquê, a copy of which was put in the Library, records the views of the six members of the European Economic Community on the manner of reaching decisions when very important issues are at stake. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, when the Prime Minister saw President Pompidou this was one of the matters raised and established. But it is really a matter of practice. I dealt with this aspect at some length in the debate on the Consolidated Fund on 15th December.

Mr. Grimond: As there is a conflict of views about this agreement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in Her Majesty's Government's view, it is part of the law or established custom of the Community; and second—either now or at some later more convenient stage—will he make clear the Government's view upon it? Are they in favour of the agreement or, if it is not part of the law and custom, do they want it to become so?

Mr. Rippon: If I may say so, I think that that is a fair way of putting it. It is part now of the established custom of the Community. As I have said often enough in the House, in practice the Community has never taken decisions against what a member of the Community regards as a vital national interest.

Mr. Shore: Having regard to the great importance which has in the past been attached to the Luxembourg Agreement, is the Chancellor of the Duchy saying that no reference is made to it in the Treaty of Accession, in its annexes or in the protocols? If that is so, is he saying that the doctrine of the veto, which he

has advanced to defend so many of the concessions he has made—the last resort position—has no basis at all in Community law or in the actual written text of the treaty which he signed?

Mr. Rippon: I made the position clear on 15th December. It is not part of the treaty. I quoted in extenso from what the present Leader of the Opposition had to say on these matters when a Labour Government were commending the British application to the House. One has to look in these days not only to the treaty but to the common law and practice which has grown up under the treaty. Until one accedes to the treaty, one cannot have the benefit of the practice.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to sign the Treaty of Accession to the Rome Treaty; and whether he will seek to arrange for a delegation of Members of Parliament to be present to witness the signing.

Mr. Rippon: The Treaty of Accession to the European Communities was signed on 22nd January by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and myself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) attended the ceremony. An invitation for representatives of other hon. Members opposite to be present was declined.

Mr. Lewis: I read of the black ink used for signing this black document. May I congratulate my right hon. Friends upon declining the invitation? Why was it that all the invitations went to Privy Councillors, two of them not Members of this House, while no back bencher was invited? Is this the way the Government will work when they select the 39 Members to go to the so-called European Parliament? Will they choose back benchers as against Privy Councillors?

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman's interest in attending the European Parliament will be borne in mind.

Rhodesia

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs what further representations he has received from African Commonwealth Governments regarding the proposed test of acceptability in Rhodesia.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Letters which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received from two Heads of African Commonwealth Governments have commented on this subject.

Mr. Strang: I shall hopefully await the right hon. Gentleman's statement on this matter.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he will require from the illegal Rhodesian régime that Mr. Joshua Nkomo and the Rev. N. Sithole will be permitted to make unfettered representations to the British Commission on the test of acceptability of the Rhodesian settlement proposals.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Lord Pearce has told me that he has seen Mr. Smith about this matter. I have no reason to expect difficulties to arise.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that no difficulties will be placed in the way of the Rev. Sithole in making representations directly to the commission? Is that not totally out of accord with replies which he has previously given? Further, having regard to the iniquitous state of affairs in Rhodesia—the murder of eight Africans and the wounding of 49—is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with any guarantees that the traitor Smith is prepared to give?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The latter point does not arise out of the Question. I said that Lord Pearce had seen Mr. Smith about these matters. I have not heard what they have actually arranged about the Rev. Sithole. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I saw Mr. Nkomo. I am certain that no difficulties will arise.

Mr. Healey: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the Rev. Sithole? He will recall that I and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends asked whether Lord Pearce would be free to see the Rev. Sithole and we were told, "No". Further, Lord

Pearce himself indicated at the Press conference which he gave a week ago that he was not able to see Mr. Sithole. The House would greatly welcome it if representations had been successfully made to Mr. Smith. Will the right hon. Gentleman now assure the House that he will press Mr. Smith on this matter until he receives a favourable response?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not believe in doing other people's jobs for them. When I ask a responsible man like Lord Pearce to do a job, I leave it to him. It is for him to be satisfied that the necessary arrangements are made for him to receive from the Rev. Sithole his views. How Lord Pearce will achieve this I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman yet, because I have not heard the result of his meetings with Mr. Smith and the consideration given to it.

Mr. Soref: In view of the special pleading for Mr. Nkomo and the Rev. Sithole from hon. Members opposite, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend recalls the word of Mr. Nkomo in 1961:
I will not rest until the rivers of the Zimbabwe run red with the blood of every white man, woman and child and every African who supports them"?
Also, will he confirm that the Rev. Sithole was found guilty of plotting to assassinate the Prime Minister of Rhodesia and some of his colleagues? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] He was found guilty. Is it not a fact that these people are seeking to create a revolution, not a settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The views of Mr. Nkomo are quite well known. He has spoken of them himself quite lately. But that is no reason why he should not see Lord Pearce.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the method of operation of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments for the establishment of the Pearce Commission on the Rhodesian settlement inquiry.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs if he will make a statement about the timetable for Lord Pearce's commission of inquiry into the acceptability of proposals for a settlement with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Pearce Commission has now released information about the procedures it will adopt in testing Rhodesian opinion.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Pearce Commission's inquiries in Rhodesia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the House will be aware, the commission has now embarked on an extensive programme of hearings which will eventually cover the whole country. Despite difficulties arising out of the present security situation, which has necessitated certain changes in the programme, the commission's work is going ahead.
I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement about the commission's procedures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all welcome the determination of the Pearce Commission to complete its task thoroughly and with the necessary freedom of political discussion? However, to prevent any misunderstanding, can he also confirm that the Government's commitment to the present proposals is conditional on an affirmative report from the commission and that, if that is not forthcoming, Britain will retain her responsibility and sanctions will continue and Britain and the world community will have to consider the whole problem afresh?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I, too, am glad that the commission is sticking to its task. It is important that it should be able to operate in a calm and peaceful atmosphere and I trust that there is now hope of that. As for the future, I shall not speculate far ahead. The great thing is that the commission should give me its report after it has been able to consult all the people of Rhodesia, or as many as it possibly can, and then we shall be able to make up our minds.

Mr. Dykes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that after the astonishing utterances of Mr. Ian Smith the other day, when he called into question the whole basis of the test of acceptability and the study of the proposals, nothing would now be worse than for the Pearce Commission to be deterred by the brutal overreaction of the Smith régime to the disturbances last week and to abandon its task in the short term instead of taking the many weeks and months which may be necessary for a complete investigation?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. The commission has my full authority and the authority of the Government to carry on in Rhodesia as long as it wishes and I am glad that it is doing so. The trouble about violence is that it always causes over-reaction and one of the reasons why I have been so anxious to get a settlement in Rhodesia has been that unless we did, there could be repression and violence and repression again endlessly into the future.

Mr. Whitehead: Would the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Pearce Commission the view that no test of acceptability will be taken as covering the whole of Rhodesian opinion unless all detainees are seen by the Pearce Commission and not merely those who may now be seen? Would he accept that "all shades" of Rhodesian opinion should include those recently detained by the illegal Smith rôgime, including Mr. Todd?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. Sir Glyn Jones saw Mr. Todd for two hours last week.

Mr. Steel: Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that the commission has adequate administrative back-up to enable people to have direct access to it without making arrangements through Rhodesian Government officials, as some reports say that in some parts of the country appointments have had to be arranged through district commissioners and the like?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in all our colonial territories in the past arrangements were naturally made through district commissioners and the heads of tribes and to some extent that is no doubt so today, but Lord Pearce is fully aware that he


should not be dependent solely on these persons.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not sanctions becoming rather a dead letter since the American chrome purchases? Although tribal bodies may wish to make collective representations, and some have done so, in favour of the proposals, is everything being done to ensure secrecy, because of widespread intimidation, for those individuals who wish to make their statements in private?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the summary of the proposals circulated in Rhodesia states unequivocally that everything will go on as now if the proposals are not accepted by the Rhodesian people as a whole? As the Minister of State, Scottish Office stated unequivocally in another place last week that it was the Government's intention that sanctions should continue until and unless the whole agreement was carried through, as laid down in the White Paper, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that by equivocating on this matter this afternoon he is undermining his own credibility and that of the Government in this matter?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman can scarcely give me lectures about credibility. The statement, he will recollect, in the simplified version of the settlement for Rhodesians relates to the Rhodesian constitution and I am afraid that that would go on if there were not settlement.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a statement on Rhodesia later.

Following is the statement:
An extensive programme of travel has been devised to enable the commissioners, working in pairs, to cover a great deal of the country. Seven teams begin their tours of the provinces on 17th January. The intention is that there should be two commissioners always available either in Salisbury or in Bulawayo, to receive views from representative groups who may wish to give them.
Lord Pearce and the deputy chairman will also be available both in Salisbury and in Bulawayo and they will also visit other centres.
The chairman's first visit to Bulawayo will be between Monday, 31st January, and Thurs-

day, 3rd February. The dates of his visits to other centres will be announced later.
Since his arrival in Rhodesia Lord Pearce has found it desirable to increase the number of commissioners, originally set at 16, by two. I agreed to his request and accordingly arranged last week for two commissioners who had already been selected before the commission's departure from London, but who had been held in reserve, to join the team in Rhodesia. They are:

Mr. J. C. Strong, H.M. Diplomatic Service, 1946–63 a member of H.M. Overseas Civil Service in Tanganyika. Joined Commonwealth Relations Office 1963.
Mr. I. E. Butler, The Housing Corporation. Served in H.M. Overseas Civil Service in Gilbert &amp; Ellice Islands 1955–60 and in Swaziland 1962–68. From 1968 to 1970 in charge of local government services of the Swaziland Government Ministry of Local Administration.
The procedure at the commission's hearings is to divide them into two parts, first to explain the nature of the proposals for a settlement and to answer factual questions about them. In this the commissioners draw upon the simplified version already distributed throughout the country. They are making use of appropriate visual aids. The second part consists of the hearing of views from witnesses either individually or in groups, and either in public or in private as the witnesses themselves choose.
However, all the commissioners will shortly be returning to Salisbury in order to discuss with Lord Pearce whether any modifications are required in their programme, or in the working methods employed, in the light of experience.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the proposed educational and economic aid for Rhodesia will be additional to the overseas aid programme previously announced.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): No, Sir.

Mr. Strang: Just how much say was it envisaged the British Government would have over how the money was spent? Was it intended that full details of those projects far which British money was given would be made available to the House?

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, Sir. The £5 million a year for 10 years to which the hon. Gentleman has referred would be spent on agreed projects and under supervision. That sum would also be matched by a contribution from the Rhodesian Government.

China

Mr. Gorst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an assurance that there will be no change in the status of the British Mission in Peking until further information on the case of Mrs. Yang, who is detained by the Chinese Government, has been made available to the British Chargé d'Affaires.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): We shall continue to do all we can to obtain Mrs. Yang's release. As regards the status of our mission in Peking, our discussions with the Chinese Government are continuing. We have made it clear that there are no obstacles on our side to an exchange of ambassadors. It would not be helpful to our improving relations, or to Mrs. Yang's case, to introduce preconditions at this stage. We have left the Chinese Government in no doubt of the continuing public concern about Mrs. Yang and the three other British subjects who have been detained for so long in China.

Mr. Gorst: I thank my hon. Friend for the tenacity which he and the Foreign Office have shown over a period of more than a year on this subject. Will he now instruct our Chargê d'Affaires, who I understand has taken up his post today, to place this important case high on his list of priorities and to secure more information for my constituent about her sister?

Mr. Royle: This is certainly one of the subjects on which we hope to make progress if an agreement on an exchange of ambassadors is reached. In the meantime we are continuing our efforts to obtain Mrs. Yang's release from detention and certainly our Chargê d'Affaires on arrival in Peking will again raise the subject with the Chinese authorities.

Mr. Dalyell: As to the exchange of ambassadors, why do we have to pursue American policy on Taiwan, a policy which incidentally, among other thing, is against British national interest?

Mr. Royle: I did not know that we were pursuing American policy on Taiwan. Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the Nationalist authorities

on Taiwan. We maintain a consulate in Tamsui, but that consulate has dealings only with the local provincial authorities.

Mr. Healey: Is not the only obstacle to the exchange of ambassadors, which I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say was Her Majesty's Government's objective, the refusal to confirm the decision taken by Sir Winston Churchill at the conferences at Cairo and Potsdam that Taiwan was part of China? Given that the ruling that the status of Taiwan was undetermined was made 20 years ago, is it not time for Her Majesty's Government to recognise the fact and pursue Britain's interests in this matter?

Mr. Royle: These are among the many matters now under discussion with the Chinese Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it would not be helpful to go into them in detail while these discussions with the Chinese Government are in progress.

Nuclear Disarmament Conference

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the convening of the five-Power nuclear disarmament conference proposed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics last June.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the convening of the five-Power nuclear disarmament conference proposed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Anthony Royle: None, Sir. China made it clear in July last year that she would not attend such a conference. The proposal has now been overtaken by discussions in the United Nations General Assembly on a world disarmament conference.

Mr. Booth: As no progress has been made towards the five-Power nuclear disarmament conference, would the Minister agree that it is now urgent that we proceed to a European security conference on the basis of the Finnish Government's proposal? Would he assure the House that Britain will not be seen to be dragging her feet or acting as a stumbling block in the path of a European security


conference and that the Government will not lay down any preconditions for attendance which would make the conference impossible?

Mr. Royle: A European security conference is a different matter. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to start making preparations for a European security conference when the Berlin Agreements have been ratified and have gone through the German Parliament.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Three different conferences have just been mentioned. Could not the British Government take the initiative on one? I am thinking of the times when Arthur Henderson led the world for disarmament instead of taking a backward step, as we now seem to be doing.

Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman is not being very fair. The present Government played an active part in the conference which resulted in various agreements on Berlin. He will also realise that we have been active in collaboration with our allies, particularly in N.A.T.O., in discussions on the possibility of a European security conference.

European Free Trade Area

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in view of his undertakings, if he has now managed to secure safeguards for all member nations of the European Free Trade Area; and if he will make a statement on the position of all applicant and non-applicant members in relation to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom have now signed the treaty of Accession to the European Communities.
European Free Trade Area non-applicants have begun to negotiate bilateral agreements with the Commission of the European Economic Community on the basis of a mandate approved by the Council of Ministers, about which we were consulted. Britain, Denmark, Norway and the present members of the Community participate as observers in these negotiations and will be consulted by the Commission.

Mr. Moate: Is it not the case that E.F.T.A. represents exactly the type and form of European association that might have commanded the full-hearted support of the British people, yet it is now being broken up for the sake of Britain's political integration with the Six? Can the Chancellor of the Duchy tell us exactly what, if any, new trade barriers are likely to be erected between Britain and her E.F.T.A. partners?

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend has forgotten that one of the main aims of the Stockholm Convention was to create a situation in which the countries of E.F.T.A. could join the European Economic Community in the appropriate form. I have made many statements to the House about the consultations I have had with the E.F.T.A. Council of Ministers and I can assure my hon. Friend that at the moment everything is proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Marten: In the event of Norway and Denmark not acceding to the Treaty of Rome, would this not throw out of balance the whole argument for our joining? Would not this have to be looked at again?

Mr. Rippon: The Danish and Norwegian Governments evidently hope that their countries will accede and that is why their Prime Ministers have signed the treaty. The treaty makes provision for the situation which might arise if one of the countries did not ratify. Presumably they might go for some form of association such as some of the other E.F.T.A. countries have done. We cannot go into these matters now.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to discuss with European Free Trade Association partners the future of that organisation in the event of Norway not becoming a member of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. Norway signed the Treaty of Accession on 22nd January.

Mr. Deakins: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of us in this House feel that we have a moral responsibility towards our E.F.T.A. partners, since Britain started E.F.T.A. in 1956, for ensuring that the interests of its members are


adequately looked after if they do not become members of the E.E.C.? Surely we should not look upon E.F.T.A., as the Government appear to be doing, merely as a sinking ship?

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: we do have these moral obligations and we are fulfilling them. Above all we have a moral obligation to help E.F.T.A. countries to fulfil the aim of the Stockholm Convention which was to enable an arrangement to be made with the E.E.C. whereby some members of E.F.T.A. become full members and some associate members.

Mr. James Johnson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the most important item on the agenda of any E.F.T.A. meeting should be that of fishery limits in the north-east Atlantic? Can he assure the House and the fishing industry that he stands four-square with Norway and the Scandinavian countries over the proposed Icelandic extension of fishing limits to 50 miles? Has he spoken to our Scandinavian colleagues about that?

Mr. Rippon: There is another Question on the Order Paper dealing with that subject. As the hon. Gentleman says, the E.F.T.A. countries are much concerned in these matters and will, I know, continue to co-operate.

New Hebrides (Hospital)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with the new hospital at Vila in the New Hebrides.

Mr. Kershaw: Consulting architects recently completed the plans for this hospital and tenders are being called for, closing on 29th February.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is my hon. Friend aware that of all hospitals in the Commonwealth, this one is most in need of replacement? Unless my hon. Friend has other information, will he see that this is given top priority?

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, Sir. I saw the hospital a few days ago and I agree it is not up to par. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the staff for the fine work they do in unsuitable conditions.

Bacteriological Weapons (Draft Convention)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made at the recent session of the United Nations General Assembly in considering the draft Convention on Bacteriological Weapons.

Mr. Anthony Royle: The General Assembly, on 16th December, approved without opposition a resolution commending the convention and requesting the depositary Governments to open it for signature and ratification at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that both the present Government and the previous Government deserve credit for the successful efforts made to promote this convention? Has my hon. Friend noted that the convention will involve a significant limitation on the sovereignty of the countries adhering to it and that it is of unlimited duration?

Mr. Royle: Yes, I have noted the points my hon. Friend mentions. The Government are now consulting with the United States and the Soviet Governments about an early date for the signing ceremony.

Republic of Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of Her Majesty's Government's representations in Dublin regarding the use of the territory of the Irish Republic for hostile activities against the United Kingdom, and requests for extradition of persons implicated in criminal acts in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Government of the Irish Republic on the subject of extradition of those in the Republic of Ireland wanted for trial in connection with alleged offences against British security forces in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Representations on specific extradition requests would not normally be appropriate given the strict division in the Republic, as in the United


Kingdom, between Executive and Judiciary. We are, however, awaiting clarification of one particular case where an extradition request in connection with a murder charge was refused despite apparently irrefutable proof of identification.
We strongly deplore the fact that terrorists in the North are able to seek sanctuary and a base in the South. We have made our views absolutely clear to the Government of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While understanding the Toiseach's difficulty in dealing with the I.R.A. without resorting to internment which was the method of Mr. De Valera's Government, may I ask whether it has been made clear to him that we in this House are finding it increasingly difficult to justify to our constituents the continuation of the privileged position of Eire in Britain?

Mr. Royle: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a chance to discuss the Irish situation with Mr. Lynch yesterday when they reviewed the situation on both sides of the Border. Details of the talks must remain confidential but my right hon. Friend took the opportunity to remind Mr. Lynch that while we welcome the measures which the Irish Government have already taken the problem of movement across the Border remains, and we would hope for the full co-operation of the Republican authorities.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will my hon. Friend renew and increase the pressure in this direction? Is he aware that more than 110 people who are now wanted for matters connected with the Irish Republican Army are believed to be in the Republic? Was the case to which he was referring and on which he has made representations the notorious Killybegs case?

Mr. Royle: Yes, the case I was referring to was that of Mr. Gallagher. We are still seeking elucidation from the Irish authorities on certain puzzling features in Irish court procedure. For example, there was the failure of the court at Killybegs on 20th October to accept that a man wanted for the murder of a policeman in Strabane had been properly identified, even when a photograph, a full description, details of tattoo marks, fingerprints, and a witness were available. We have

received a reply but no explanation to our repeated inquiries on this point.

Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the speech at Strasbourg last week of the Dublin Minister of Justice, Mr. O'Malley, in which he repudiated any such suggestion that the Irish Republic is being used as a base for hostilities against Northern Ireland or as a source of explosives for use in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Royle: I am aware of Mr. O'Malley's statement in Strasbourg. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed his regret about it to Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Stallard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that questions of this kind from hon. Members opposite only make a bad situation much worse and cause a deterioration in relations we are trying to mend? Would it not be far better if they spent more time making constructive noises about the end of internment and trying to create a decent atmosphere in which people of good will can bring the trouble to an end?

Mr. Royle: There is natural concern on both sides of the House about this matter and it is quite right and proper that it should be expressed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when a young British soldier lost his life on Friday, the fuse wire which detonated the land mine ran into the territory of the Irish Republic? Is he also aware that there were two serious incidents on the Border yesterday when 600 people in one instance and 100 people in the other case came across the Border and there was a serious confrontation with British troops? Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon the leaders of the Irish Republic the necessity to ensure that their part of the Border is properly guarded and that the terrorists are kept down there?

Mr. Royle: We are aware of the shocking and tragic death of Private Stentiford last Friday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew Mr. Lynch's attention to it and suggested that, when there seemed to be a certain amount of evidence to suggest that the perpetrators of the crime were operating from south of the Border, action should be taken.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman continually refers to the conversation which took place yesterday between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. Did the Prime Minister refer yesterday to the cratering of the roads during which operation the unfortunate and tragic death referred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) occurred? If so, did the right hon. Gentleman continue to pretend that this operation had some military significance or did he accept that it was simply a political act?

Mr. Hoyle: The matter of cratering was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday with Mr. Lynch. Cratering was a necessary step in an attempt to reduce the cross-Border traffic in smuggled arms and ammunition. Details of military operations are matters for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

European Security Conference

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his recent talks with Mr. William Rogers, the United States Secretary of State, particularly as regards the convening of an East-West security conference.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Rogers and I discussed questions of common interest among which were those relating to European security. The details of our discussions are confidential.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the partnership of Rogers and Hammerstein produced far more enjoyable results than that of Rogers and Home? Is it not a fact that Mr. Rogers reported agreement between himself and the Foreign Secretary that discussions about holding a security conference should await the signing of the protocol in May by the four Powers? Why cannot discussion start now? East Germany and West Germany have already agreed. Is not this just another excuse for prolonging until 1973 the holding of such a conference?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is justified in coming to that conclusion. The whole of the N.A.T.O. Alliance felt that we could proceed to a multilateral prepara-

tion directly the Berlin Agreement was through. We hoped that we would be able to do this at the last N.A.T.O. meeting but the Russians said that the treaties between Germany and Poland and Germany and the Soviet Union must be ratified, and the Germans wanted to wait until that was done.

Mr. Wilkinson: In any initiatives which may be taken, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the recent State of the Union Message by the President of the United States in which, for very good reasons—principally the state of virtual parity in nuclear armaments and the preponderance of conventional fire-power in Europe of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries—he said that he was having to increase armaments expenditure this year? Will my right hon. Friend bear these realities very much in mind?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further? Is it not clear that the West German Federal Government have gone further than our Government in agreeing to the calling and holding of an early European security conference although they are most directly involved? If the Foreign Ministers of the Warsaw Pact Powers later this week make a further proposal about holding a conference, will the right hon. Gentleman make a more positive response and agree to the proposal of the Finnish Government to start preliminary discussions on holding a conference?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Alliance decided that multilateral preparation should not begin until the Berlin settlement was finished, and then the Russians said that they wanted the German treaties to be ratified. Therefore, the Germans wished to wait until the treaties had been ratified before multilateral preparations began. I hope that ratification will follow very soon so that we can begin the multilateral preparations.

Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Civil and Political Rights

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to ratify the International Covenant on Economic


Social and Culural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Mr. Kershaw: The obligations to be undertaken under these covenants are wide-ranging and would apply not only to the United Kingdom but also in the dependent territories. Because they are expressed in vague terms the obligations require careful study and I can hold out no prospect of early ratification.

Mr. Archer: In view of the Government's enthusiasm for signing international conventions, as demonstrated in the answer to Question No. 20, why are they so hesitant to ratify those which they have signed? Would the hon. Gentleman indicate the subjects in respect of which the Government are hesitant to submit their actions to international discussion?

Mr. Kershaw: We have to make sure that these covenants are applicable to all our territories and, because they are expressed in vague terms, they are difficult to define. For instance, there is mention of arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy. The Younger Commission is now sitting to decide what privacy is. Surely it would be a good idea to have that matter decided before we sign a convention about it.

South Africa (Detention of Mr. Quentin Jacobsen)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will inquire into the circumstances in which Mr. Quentin Jacobsen, a member of the National Union of Journalists and a British subject, is at present being held without trial by the South Africa authorities in solitary confinement in a prison cell in Johannesburg; and what action he is taking to secure Mr. Jacobsen's release.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I understand that Mr. Jacobsen has been detained under Section 6 of the South African Terrorism Act and is to appear in the magistrates court some time this week. It is likely that he will be remanded for a hearing in the Supreme Court on 20th March. Arrangements have now been made for weekly consular visits.

Mr. Edelman: I deplore imprisonment without trial anywhere, but is it not par-

ticularly inhuman that Mr. Jacobsen should have been kept incommunicado for so long without being allowed to receive visitors? Why did it take so long for Her Majesty's Government to send a representative to intervene in this case when a British subject was being held in such appalling conditions?

Mr. Royle: We regret the conditions in which Mr. Jacobsen has been held. But it did not take a long time for the British Government to take action. As recently as 3rd January Her Majesty's Ambassador reminded the South African authorities that, as a general principle, whenever a British subject is detained Her Majesty's Government expect either that charges should be preferred and the accused brought to trial or that he be speedily released. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the South African Ambassador the very serious view which this House takes of the detention without trial of British subjects in other countries.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not the least disturbing feature about this scandalous case is the grave concern about Mr. Jacobsen's state of health? Will he use the good offices of the British High Commission in South Africa to ensure that Mr. Jacobsen is given proper medical care?

Mr. Royle: We are concerned about Mr. Jacobsen's state of health. He is showing signs of strain as a result of his continued detention but he has made no complaints about his treatment. We shall ensure that our consul, when he visits Mr. Jacobsen, looks very closely at this aspect of his detention.

Mr. Marten: If the Government view detentions like that of Mr. Jacobsen with grave concern, why did not they protest about the detention of British subjects in Brussels last Saturday?

Mr. Royle: That is a totally different matter. I assume that the British subjects arrested in Brussels will come before the courts in due course.

India and Pakistan

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what messages were sent by his


Department to the Indian Prime Minister following the conclusion of the Indian-Pakistan war; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Governments of India and Pakistan.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's initiatives in connection with the situation within the Indian sub-continent.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have continued to keep in close touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan. The details of these exchanges must remain confidential.
I shall be visiting New Delhi from 5th to 8th February. In my talks with the Indian Government we will, of course, review the situation and recent developments in the sub-continent.
I hope to be able to visit Pakistan later in the year, at a mutually convenient time.

Mr. Milne: While the action taken is to be welcomed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that it seems a little inadequate in the light of the tremendous problems facing the Indian Government at the end of the war and the problems on her frontiers? How long will it be before the British Government recognise Bangladesh following the action of the Indian Government at the end of the war?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On the question of relations with the Indian Government, I think it is a good idea to go there and to discuss with them what they require. No request has yet come to us from the Indians. I hope to make a statement in the near future about the question of recognition. What we and a lot of other countries are anxious to achieve is reconciliation between Bangladesh and Pakistan and the creation of the most harmonious relations possible.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would my right hon. Friend bring forward his visit to Pakistan so that he can visit the area on his way to New Delhi and then Bangkok? It

would be valuable if he could have discussions with the President and the new Government of Pakistan and find ways of recognising the new régime in Dacca at an appropriate moment, which presumably will be when the Indian troops have withdrawn from that country.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am in very close touch with the Government of Pakistan and the rulers of Bangladesh. A visit at this moment probably would not help when they have so much on their hands. However, I will consider the matter.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman clearly is giving urgent consideration to the possibility of recognising Bangladesh. Is he giving parallel consideration to the possibility of Bangladesh joining the Commonwealth?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That will be for Bangladesh to decide when the time comes for it to make its request.

Mr. Bottomley: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said about trying to bring Bangladesh and Pakistan together but will he go further and consider, under the aegis of the British Government for a change, calling together the Indian, Bangladesh and Pakistan representatives?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are willing to help in any way we can; Mr. Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman understand that. I hope to discuss these matters with Mrs. Gandhi in a very short time.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide special aid for Bangladesh on the cessation of hostilities.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his plans for continuing aid and relief to the areas affected by the India-Pakistan fighting.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the resumption of aid to East Bengal.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid he now proposes to give to what has so far been known as East Pakistan.

Mr. Kershaw: On 18th January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement on the position, which remains unchanged. We cannot sign aid loans before recognition, but we have been considering what the needs of the country will be and have begun discussions with the World Bank about the setting up of an aid programme. We hope that an international consortium will be established in due course, and we shall be anxious to play our part in it.—[Vol. 829, c. 215–17.]

Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am aware of the proposals the Government made last month, but as far as one can tell the most urgent needs now are for shelter, food, medical aid and the rehabilitation of the transport services of Bangladesh. Whilst I realise that this is a problem for not only Britain but the whole world, will not the hon. Gentleman make attempts through the United Nations, as well as the proposal he has made, to see that urgent relief is given so that the country can get back on its feet again?

Mr. Kershaw: I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern about the matter. The United Nations assessment team is now there trying to decide what is needed, and at the request of the United Nations one of our engineering experts has gone to Dacca to assess what needs to be done about transport.

Mr. Lane: If further help during the cold weather is urgently needed, in addition to the supply of blankets, to meet the need for which there was such a magnificent response from this country recently, will the Government consider offering the services of the Royal Air Force, which has already done so much since the crisis first developed?

Mr. Kershaw: I am proud that we have been able to play a leading part in meeting the needs of the refugees so far. We shall certainly continue to do so through the United Nations, which I think is the best way of tackling the problem at present.

Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that even before the recent hostilities there was a need for a vast amount of aid and advice to enable the people of East Bengal to build up the

dykes against the typhoons that have caused such immense loss of life there in recent years?

Mr. Kershaw: I am aware that the needs of the territory are so vast that it almost beggars the imagination to think what should be done first.

Mrs. Hart: Will the hon. Gentleman give us two assurances? First, will he assure us that the whole question of recognition will not be permitted, as his answer seemed to indicate it might, to hold up whatever aid can be given to Bangladesh in present circumstances, since the need is so desperate? Secondly can he tell us that the possibility of setting up an international consortium will not delay British bilateral aid or multilateral aid through the United Nations, because of the possibility of American reluctance to engage in aid at this moment? It seems to us that there might be a great delay if the normal consortium mechanism is gone through.

Mr. Kershaw: I very much hope that the consultations we are having with the United Nations agencies will result in their being no hold-up in the flow of aid to that territory. It is the case that recognition will stand in the way of bilateral aid between the two countries, but I very much hope that the aid from this country will reach that part of the world without any delay caused by the legal position.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I suggested last week to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that one of the greatest needs is the simple though massive one of a vast supply of blankets. Have further investigations been made into the question, and what results have come out?

Mr. Kershaw: I noticed my hon. Friend's suggestion and we forwarded to the United Nations what he said. I am not in a position to say what conclusion the United Nations came to, but we shall keep pursuing the matter.

Foreign Governments (Recognition)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the criteria for recognition of a foreign Government by Her Majesty's Government.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As has been made clear by successive Governments on a number of occasions in this House, Her Majesty's Government consider that a Government is entitled to recognition as the Government of a State when it may fairly be held to enjoy, with a reasonable prospect of permanency, the obedience of the mass of the population and effective control of much the greater part of the national territory.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that clear. Will he firmly refute recent reports in the Press which seemed to suggest that a new criterion had been adopted, namely, that a Government enjoyed the support of the population for which it was supposedly responsible? On that basis, surely there is not a single Government in Eastern Europe which should have been recognised since the war.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think I should be tempted to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. However, I can assure him that no new criteria are being introduced.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the criteria he has outlined apply to East Germany? If so, will he explain why the Government do not recognise East Germany?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.

Passports

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take steps to make it possible for a wife to travel abroad on a passport held jointly with her husband.

Mr. Kershaw: Under an international agreement, which was reviewed in 1963, a wife cannot travel on a family passport without her husband. There appears to be little prospect of reaching universal agreement for a change in this arrangement at this time.

Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is wrong for the Foreign Office to accept an international agreement whereby wives are treated as appendages of husbands? Will the Government do whatever they can to get this regulation changed?

Mr. Kershaw: Wives are not treated as appendages. It is merely a matter of convenience. If a family wants to go together that can be done, by international agreement, on the head of the family's passport. It would not be a service to allow ladies to travel on their husbands' passports. I for one should not like to get a lady into trouble by giving her a passport which might not be recognised.

COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Harold Lever (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the industrial dispute in the coal industry.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): On 21st January—last Friday—I met at my request representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board to explore at first hand whether any practical step was possible which could help to resolve the deadlock. These meetings followed an account given to me by Mr. Victor Feather, the General Secretary of the T.U.C., of the meeting which he had arranged earlier in the week between the union and the Board at which there had been no indication of the possibility of productive talks between them.
I thoroughly explored the present position of both the parties. The representatives of the union told me that only a substantially improved money offer could provide a basis for any further meeting with the Board or of any prospect of a settlement being reached. For their part, the representatives of the Board explained that the last offer they had made in negotiations had represented the maximum the industry's financial and commercial circumstances could allow. The statements made by both parties following these meetings clearly showed that they had been unable to make any change in their positions.
I had therefore reluctantly to conclude that at the present time there was nothing further I could do to help them towards a settlement. I shall however continue to consider any possibilities of further action and have told the parties that I shall be keeping in touch with them.

Mr. Lever: The right hon. Gentleman appears to believe that his rôle is to


explore the position of the contending parties, and not to seek to guage the position of the parties. So long as he contents himself with exploration instead of constructive intervention and conciliation, is not it clear that he will preside over a deadlock, as both parties maintain their position? Has he made clear to the National Coal Board that he will encourage it to look again at the position it has taken up, to see whether there are flexible concessions it might offer to the miners? Has he probed what the mineworkers' leaders mean by a "substantially improved money offer", to see whether there is the basis for the resumption of discussions? Will he bear in mind that the nation expects all the parties concerned—the right hon. Gentleman, the Board and the mineworkers' leaders—to do everything possible to bring about a reasonable settlement of a dispute which, if it lasts, will have the gravest consequences for the nation and possibly disastrous consequences for the coal industry?
Will he move from the attitude of detached, lofty impartiality as to the outcome, revealed by his statement, and move into a position of active conciliation, in which he seeks to impress upon the Board the possibilities of a flexible adjustment in its position on the one hand and examines with the mineworkers' union what is meant by talk of an increased offer—what the size of that offer will have to be to get constructive discussions under way?

Mr. Carr: I made very clear to both parties the very serious nature of their dispute, from the point of view not only of the future interests of their industry and all those who work in it but of the whole country. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I stressed that very strongly. The right hon. Gentleman advises me to move from my position of detached impartiality. If anyone holding my position were to do that, his ability to conciliate would quickly disappear. To conciliate, there must be some flexibility. To decide whether there is flexibility, there must be thorough exploration, and that is exactly what I have been carrying out. The right hon. Gentleman must take it not only from me but from the adamancy Mr. Victor Feather found as well, and from the statements made by both parties pub-

licly after their meeting with me—such as the statement by the union that it would not consider any court of inquiry or any independent means of resolving the dispute—that the position on both sides is very hard at present. I can only repeat what I said in my statement, that I am watching very carefully for any possibilities, and have told the parties that I shall be keeping in touch with them and looking for some sign of flexibility.

Mr. Cormack: Whilst I appreciate all the difficulties, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see the parties again very soon and try to persuade them to agree to a court of inquiry being set up.

Mr. Carr: I shall keep my hon. Friend's point in mind, but both parties have made it very clear to me that they saw no value in a joint meeting unless the situation changed in some way, and they specifically did not want me to suggest further meetings unless there was something new to say, some new question to ask for some definite message to communicate. They felt that meetings without a well-defined purpose in the present state of affairs could be counter-productive rather than productive.

Mr. Lever: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has carefully explored the position. What I want him to answer is the point I made before: what is he doing to seek to move both parties from their position of inflexibility, which, if it continues, must mean the continuation of a disastrous strike? Has he made it plain to the Board—after all, the Government cannot regard the dispute as if it were one in private industry—that he would not stand in the way of a modification of its offer if it brought about a settlement? Has he asked the mineworkers' union what it means by a "substantial money increase"? Any money increase that occurs in this matter is necessarily substantial, but has he asked the mineworkers what they have in mind, so that he may judge what advice he might give the Board?

Mr. Carr: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have probed very deeply into the different parties' positions. But I gave them an assurance, which I believe is right and think to be normal, that anything they might say to me in reply to my probings would be locked in the secrecy


of my mind and would not be discussed until an appropriate moment.

Mr. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), laid down very strong guidelines in these matters on 24th July, 1967, when he said:
If there were devaluation in this country, any effort on the part of the organised workers to counteract it by securing higher wages should be ruthlessly resisted."?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 100.]
That was the policy of the Labour Party then.

Mr. Carr: As I told the House in the debate last week, I have a double duty, which is not peculiar to me; my predecessors had it as well. That double duty, which is not easy, is to regard the overriding public interest, particularly to have stability of prices, and the need to get a settlement which both parties to a dispute regard as fair and acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Grant.

Mr. John D. Grant: The Minister mentioned the miners' rejection of any independent—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I meant the other Mr. Grant, the Member for Morpeth (Mr. George Grant).

Mr. George Grant: If the Minister is not further to harden the attitudes of the mining communities, will he take into consideration that this wage application does not arise just from the events of the last 12 months but goes back to 1956, since when miners' wages have slid back considerably compared with those of others? Will he also consider that successive Governments restricted the National Coal Board in increasing the price of coal, and that during the last 12 months imported coal has cost this nation between £5 and £15 a ton more than our own indigenous fuel?

Mr. Carr: I am certainly aware, and I think that probably the House and the country were aware beforehand, of what certainly the miners' leaders made very clear to me again when I saw them on Friday, that one of the major elements in this dispute is not some sudden issue but the boiling up after a long period

of feelings that the miners were being relegated compared to other people in the work force of this country. I am very well aware that that is one of the strong feelings.

Mr. Redmond: While accepting that this situation is extremely delicate and one which one would not want to do anything to exacerbate, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he had any discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers regarding the level of picketing which has caused such ill feeling throughout the country?

Mr. Carr: Yes. I think it is fair to say that this matter did come up in my meetings with both parties, and I think that this has also appeared in public statements—at least, one of them, as far as one incident, namely, at Doncaster, which caused, I am sure, very great public disquiet last Friday. I am glad, and I am sure the whole House will be glad, to see that the union has taken action about that—

Mr. Skinner: Some miners have.

Mr. Carr: —which, I hope, is being put into operation today, because I am sure that what went on at Doncaster on Friday did not accord with the wishes of the leadership of the union.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever has happened about picketing is the result of the strike and not the cause of it, and will he bear in mind that past holders of his office have not necessarily waited for one or other of the parties or both to agree before setting up an inquiry? Is it not the position at the moment that we have a strike and the Minister seems pixilated and does not seem to know with whom to agree?

Mr. Carr: It would be a very rash holder of my office who appointed any inquiry or any machinery of that kind when he has been told very bluntly by both sides that they are not prepared to consider that as a means for resolving the dispute. It is for that reason that my predecessors, sometimes, of both parties—alas, no doubt reluctantly—felt it wise to wait a long time, because once one has played that card one cannot play it again, and if it does not take the trick it is very serious.

Mr. John Page: Can my right hon. Friend give any information about dealing with safety conditions in any of the pits due to the reduction of maintenance being carried out at the moment?

Mr. Carr: I am afraid not in detail. I really think one must leave this to the National Coal Board to deal with with the National Union of Mineworkers. I hope that the whole House will agree, and show evidence of agreement about it, that to both parties this is an immensely important subject, because if it is not given proper priority the consequences can be extremely serious for the future of employment and of the industry.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the miners believe—[Interruption.] Be quiet.

Mr. Skinner: I will be quiet when thou be quiet.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the miners believe that it is his administration which is responsible for the present strike because he interfered with the National Coal Board during negotiations? Since the National Executive of the N.U.M. meets tomorrow—and I am a member of it—will he give a declaration now from the Dispatch Box that he will say to the N.C.B., "You can negotiate without the Government peering over your shoulder, and let us have a settlement which will be suitable to the people of this country and suitable to the miners"?

Mr. Carr: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's declaratory question is totally incorrect. In fact, the miners have gone out of their way themselves to deny that allegation which the hon. Gentleman has made—

Mr. Eadie: Who said that?

Mr. Carr: —and that it was not anything to do with this Government, and indeed, I said—

Mr. Eadie: Who said that?

Mr. Carr: —when I was replying to another hon. Gentleman a few moments ago, and also, in the debate last Tuesday, many hon. Gentlemen opposite, including those with the closest connections with the miners and their industry, went out of their way to emphasise that this was a culmination of a number of years of

feelings of being pushed about and so on and so forth and was not a quarrel with this Government, nor a quarrel by this Government with the miners. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can only say, as I told the House last week, and as I told both parties again last Friday, that the National Coal Board has been free to negotiate, it has negotiated, it is under no more duress or less than the industry was before under both Governments; and indeed, of course, it is under considerably less duress than it was under the last Government's statutory incomes policy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We ought to get on. We have a very important debate today.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is no longer 1926 when the miners were driven underground and that there is no black-legging taking place in this industry? Would he not realise that it is time that the dead hand of the Government should be taken off the National Coal Board, and that the Government should give a little bit of easement so that a settlement could be brought about, which would be to the benefit of the people of this country and not just to the benefit of a nationalised industry?

Mr. Carr: I do not really think that the hon. Gentleman helps matters when he speaks as if there has been great rigidity or that the Coal Board was in a fixed position. Whatever may be said about the merits of either the claim or the offer, it remains a fact that the offer of the Coal Board has been adjusted and raised at least three or four times, and that genuine negotiations went on till 48 hours before the strike, and that the negotiations were at levels far above any maximum level which his Government provided when they were in power.

RHODESIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement—the further statement which I promised the House on events in Rhodesia when


I had ascertained the views of Lord Pearce on the ability of his Commission to continue at work and following reports which Mr. Mansfield has been able to send to me. Since I last reported there have been further serious disorders in Rhodesia in the towns of Harare, near Salisbury, Fort Victoria and Umtali. The Rhodesia Government have also detained Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano. In the disturbances to which I have referred 15 Africans have died and many have been hurt. Whatever the circumstances which gave rise to these disturbances the casualties are a matter of the deepest concern and regret.
The form which the disorder has taken is that demonstrators, many of them youths, have indulged in looting, arson and stone-throwing and in every case, with the exception of Harare, the targets were other Africans and Asians and their property, as well as the African police. At Harare Europeans were stoned and injured.

Mr. Kelley: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member raise his point of order later at the end of the statement?

Mr. Kelley: The House has been allowed insufficient time to consider a matter of urgent national importance. You, Mr. Speaker, have terminated questions on the coal industry dispute—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kelley: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat when I am on my feet. The hon. Member has made a perfectly fair point. I allowed 20 minutes for the Private Notice Question because there is a very important debate on unemployment coming on later.

Mr. Skinner: The coal mines are important as well.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must realise that the decision whether or not to allow Private Notice Questions is one for me. If every time I allow a Private Notice Question it is expected that half an hour of the House's time will be taken

up, I shall not allow them. I allowed the Private Notice Question today and I allowed 20 minutes for its discussion. It is a matter for me.

Mr. Harold Walker: Further to that point of order. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I rarely trespass on the time of the House with a point of order, either at Question Time or at any other time, but I thought it was a long-standing custom of the House that when an hon. Member's constituency and constituents were the subject of discussion the hon. Member representing those constituents had the right to speak on their behalf. I repeatedly sought to catch your eye during questions to the Secretary of State for Employment when Doncaster was referred to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The selection of speakers is a matter for me. I try to call as many hon. Members as possible. I should have liked to call the hon. Member, and at least 20 other hon. Members were rising. I did the best I could. It is a matter for me. Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Bishop Muzorewa has appealed to the supporters of the African National Council for restraint. There is, however, evidence that there are elements in Rhodesia which are set on disrupting the work of the Pearce Commission by encouraging nation-wide disorder. There have been cases too of intimidation of those who had declared their support for the proposed settlement. The person and property of one African Member of Parliament who has openly favoured the proposals have been attacked.
The House will recall the sentence in the White Paper which read that there should be:
… normal political activities …provided they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner.
This is at the heart of the matter. The reconciliation of normal political activity with the maintenance of law and order in present circumstances is clearly one of extreme difficulty.
At my meetings with Mr. Smith in Salisbury and since then I have urged on him the importance of allowing the maximum political freedom. I cannot question his right, provided the minimum of force is used, to maintain security and


order. In answer to a question by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 21st January, I gave Lord Pearce's summing up of the matter at that date. I would invite hon. Members to study it with great care. It is an admirably balanced statement. He concluded thus, that the conditions were such that he could carry on. He has not yet altered that view.
Out of 60 meetings planned so far by the Commission, 54 have been held and were completely orderly.
I would hope that everyone would agree that all Rhodesians should be given the chance to give their opinions to the Commission without being influenced by violence and intimidation from any quarter. This opportunity must be kept open. I trust that the Commission will be able to carry on its work, and I propose to leave that judgment to Lord Pearce and his team in whom Her Majesty's Government have complete confidence.

Mr. Healey: I welcome the assurance that the Pearce Commission plans to continue its work and share the Foreign Secretary's hope that it will be allowed to proceed with the test of acceptability without violence or intimidation from any quarter, a hope which has also been expressed by Bishop Muzorewa on behalf of the African National Council. In all other respects the statement of the Foreign Secretary is totally unsatisfactory and betrays a deplorable indifference to his responsibilities and those of the House.
The Foreign Secretary will recall that he is making a statement today because he was unable to answer the pleas last Wednesday by myself and hon. Members of both sides of the House and in another place for the immediate release of Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter. The only reason why we were prepared to leave the matter there at that moment was that the Foreign Secretary said that he would send out an official, although he already had a diplomatic representative on the spot, to inform himself thoroughly on the circumstances of Mr. Todd's arrest and of other incidents which were referred to in the House last Wednesday.
Since last Wednesday, Mr. Chinamano and his wife, leading members of the

African National Council, have been arrested without any charge being made. Mr. Chinamano is known to many hon. Members on both sides of the House as one of the outstanding multi-racial moderates among the African political leaders in Rhodesia.
Since the Foreign Secretary's statement last Wednesday, the number of Africans killed by the security forces has risen to 15, and 50 have been injured by the security forces. We have had a speech from Mr. Smith whose threatening brutality was rightly criticised by one of the Foreign Secretary's hon. Friends at Question Time a few minutes ago.
On 21st January, Lord Pearce defined two fields in which the Smith rêgime had broken its promise to allow normal political activity, namely, the total denial of any political activity in certain areas and, secondly, the detention of some people simply to silence them.
Is it not totally unacceptable that the Foreign Secretary should come to the House today against this background and have nothing whatever to say about the denial of normal political activity, and is this not the breaking by Mr. Smith of a promise made personally to the Foreign Secretary? Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that he cannot, like Pontius Pilate, wash his hands of this matter, because the events to which I have referred are a direct result of his personal agreement with Mr. Smith? They constitute a promise made by Mr. Smith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—to the Foreign Secretary and transmitted to this House as the whole basis of this agreement. Has not the Foreign Secretary learned from experience that it is a mistake to allow a dictator to break his promises and to break an agreement even when that agreement was intended—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. Can the House be told whether we are entering a debate on Rhodesia—if so, many of us would like to join in—or are supposed to be listening to a question to the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman has just drawn to an end.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point or order. Is it not the custom of the House, whichever Government are in power, that the leading spokesman for the Opposition is allowed approximately the same time as the Minister took in making the statement?

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful for all this help on matters of order, but I would prefer to rule myself.

Mr. Healey: In answer to the earlier point of order, or in comment on it, may I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall seek on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, at the appropriate time, an immediate debate on this subject? May I conclude by asking the Foreign Secretary whether he has not learned by experience that it is a mistake to allow a dictator to break an agreement, even if that agreement was intended to appease him?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman feels that the Commission should remain in the field and see whether the settlement is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia or not. The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that I want a settlement which will give the Africans some chance of a tolerable political life in Rhodesia in the future. I have no intention whatever of washing my hands of the future of the mass of Africans, who I think would be served well by the settlement and have very little chance of anything but oppression and violence for years ahead unless such a settlement is carried through.
If he will read Lord Pearce's message, the right hon. Gentleman will see that he is not right about no political activity in the tribal trust lands in particular. Lord Pearce has said that it is not so. In answer to his last question, when I ask a man like Lord Pearce, a trusted and responsible person, to carry out a task, I am not in the habit of interfering with that man's task and taking it over, like some other people I know.

Sir G. Longden: rose—

Hon. Members: Todd?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I said, I have asked Mr. Smith, in respect of all detainees and in respect of all Rhodesians, indeed, to arrange for the

maximum political freedom that there can be. I have conveyed to him the extreme sensitivity of this House and my regrets that he has found it necessary to put Mr. Todd in internment. I hope that Lord Pearce is taking this matter up also with Mr. Smith. For the moment, it would be well to leave it there.

Sir G. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend ascertain from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and his leader whether they would now be prepared to use force in Rhodesia to bring the Smith régime to heel? If not, the position remains as it did on 14th March, 1968, when the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, told this House:
It is true, as we all recognise, that we have no ability to stop these hangings …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1628.]
and as it did on 22nd October, 1968, when the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said:
… we have been denied the physical power to control events on the ground …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 1096.]
That was a realistic and accurate statement of the position then and it still obtains today.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. As I understand it, the Opposition are not prepared to use force. If that is so, the only way to solve the problem is by negotiation—and the Leader of the Opposition was willing to indulge in negotiation. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he failed.

Mr. John Mendelson: Must not the Foreign Secretary accept that the arrest of people like the Treasurer of the African National Council and Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter is directly undermining the contention, which he has now put to the House several times, that he wants the maximum of ordinary legal political activity? Is it not quite clear that he has failed in his duty so far in reply to these questions to give a clear outline of the direct action that he is now taking to get Mr. Todd and the Treasurer of the A.N.C. released? Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot leave it at this general statement, since the policy he has put to us would then be defeated by his own inactivity?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps I should commend again to the hon. Gentleman Lord Pearce's statement, which, as I said, was very careful and balanced. He says that he is loth to make a premature judgment on allegations and counter-allegations which are, in our present state of knowledge, hard to evaluate. I shall hear further from Lord Pearce, but I have nothing more to add to that now.

Mr. Tapsell: Has Lord Pearce received a reply to his request for information as to the reasons why Mr. Garfield Todd and Miss Todd were taken into detention?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Again, I commend to my hon. Friend Lord Pearce's statement—

Mr. Healey: Answer the question.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not interfere with my right to answer one of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman lives in a sort of continual state of political apoplexy. I wish that he would calm himself down—

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order. I apologise for raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during this very important discussion, but will the Foreign Secretary answer the House in such a way that back benchers like myself can hear what he has to say?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that that is more in the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite than in mine. I have said that I would ask my hon. Friend to read Lord Pearce's statement, in which he says that he has been in touch, of course, with Mr. Smith on these matters. So have I. The right hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members: What did he say?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House must recognise that there is a limit to the influence which we can exercise. The Leader of the Opposition will remember very well two of his Members of Parliament being ejected from Rhodesia—Dr. Bray and Mr. Ennals. The right hon. Gentleman could do nothing then except express a view.

Mr. Bottomley: How can it be said that normal political activity can take

place when Africans have been brutally murdered, many wounded and their national leaders not able to express a point of view? In addition, European liberal opinion, through Garfield Todd and others, is also being suppressed. Does this not confirm what many of us said from the beginning—that the whole of these proceedings is a farce?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman, who is usually fair in these matters, is perfectly entitled to his point of view. I am also entitled to mine [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I am entitled to mine, which is that, unless a settlement like this can be considered by the Rhodesian people, the future of the Africans in Rhodesia is not one that I should like to contemplate.

Mr. Dixon: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what his reaction is to the unmitigated glee with which hon. Members opposite clutch at any incident to ventilate an issue involving the lives of millions of innocent Africans in Rhodesia? Will he assure us that, if he chooses to call the Pearce Commission home, he will do so in the light of his own judgment and not in response to any irresponsible approaches from hon. Members opposite?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no intention of calling the Pearce Commission home. Lord Pearce and his colleagues can judge whether they can carry out their task. So far, they judge that they are able to do so.

Mr. David Steel: Were we not right to understand last week that one of the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman sent his emissary to Rhodesia was to find out the grounds on which the Todds had been detained, and to satisfy himself that they had been implicated in stirring up violence? Is he now telling us that he is not so satisfied, but cannot do anything about it? If so, we should like to hear that. In view of the appeal by Bishop Muzorewa for restraint, would it not be more effective if he were given broadcasting time to make that appeal?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The bishop has made an appeal for restraint, which I hope is being heard. There have been no incidents since Friday in Rhodesia, so I hope that it has been heard. There is no doubt that there are many ways of


getting the bishop's opinion to people in Rhodesia. Mr. Mansfield has not been able to tell me so far the grounds on which Mr. Todd has been interned.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider some of the answers he has given, for example, about comparisons with 1968 and the expulsion of two hon. Members of this Parliament, in that at that time there was no agreement on the Table of the House of Commons?
Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as he has reached agreement with Mr. Smith and is sponsoring this agreement in this House and elsewhere, he has every right to say to Mr. Smith that he, Mr. Smith, must carry out his agreement in the matter of political activities to make the fifth principle work.
While the right hon. Gentleman is considering these matters—I do not necessarily ask for an answer today, but I do ask that he says that he will consider them—will he consider whether the Commission is doing what this House intended and is not doing what was not proposed when it was first put forward, in that instead of sitting there receiving views, with the cases for and against being put by others in Rhodesia, it is now in the position of explaining the settlement and getting into arguments on behalf of the settlement, as reported. I am sure that this was not intended.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take this up, not in a hostile manner, with the Commission to see if this is what was intended? Should not this Commission operate like commissions, inquiries and courts, whether judicial or not, which are set up in this country to which cases are put by adversaries, be they lawyers and others; and does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Commission should not be involved in trying to sell the particular subject on which it may have to rule?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also take up with Mr. Smith the fact that beyond doubt his broadcast on Friday tried to trick the Rhodesian people—[Interruption.]—by saying that a vote against the agreement was a vote for the 1969 Republican constitution? This

cannot be the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
Since, therefore, this is totally false and since Mr. Smith has full television and radio at his disposal, while opponents of the settlement do not have television and radio by which to express a contrary view, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter up with the Commission and with Mr. Smith so that an unfair appeal, with which no hon. Member of this House would agree, will not invalidate any answer which the Commission may reach?
Will the right hon. Gentleman next consider whether it is not undesirable that one member of the Commission should seem to be making public statements to one newspaper in Britain, statements which some of us feel are to some extent prejudicial in respect of the Commission's inquiries?
In an earlier statement the right hon. Gentleman told us that he had insisted on detainees being able to express a view. Does he really think that the Todds can express a view from prison'?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Leader of the Opposition began by suggesting that the Commission was trying to sell the settlement, and I do not believe that there is anything whatever in that. The Commission is perfectly entitled—

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he misunderstood me. I did not say the Commission was trying to sell the settlement. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether its interpretation of its instructions to ensure that its desire to see that all those concerned in Rhodesia understood it has not led the Commission to the position where it is explaining the settlement to them. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that that is something which should be done by other people, black and white, in Rhodesia in view of the fact that there are Press accounts of people arguing with the Commission and the Commission being driven, I am sure unwillingly, into the position of defending the settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think so. The Commission must be entitled to explain the agreement. The Africans cannot possibly understand it unless it is properly and simply explained.
I of course agree with the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman put on Mr. Smith's broadcast, but the fact remains, and let us face it, that unless this settlement is accepted, the 1969 constitution will remain. I have been trying to impress on the right hon. Gentleman all the time that under that constitution there can be repression, and the answer to repression will be violence, and there will be an endless vista of bloodshed unless a settlement of this sort is made.
I will look into the question of television and radio to which the Leader of the Opposition referred.
When the right hon. Gentleman asks me, as he did, in effect, the other day, to withdraw the settlement—[Interruption.] In a public speech outside he suggested that we should withdraw the terms of the settlement—the answer is that we cannot do that. This settlement must be put before the people of Rhodesia and they must be allowed to judge it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent what I said in that statement. I in fact said that if he could not get satisfaction on the point an which he had insisted—freedom of political activity, a point about which he has made a great thing—then, in those circumstances, he would have to withdraw it. We have said that the last thing we want is for the Commission to be withdrawn—[Interruption.] We want to get an honest answer out of this Commission and it wants to give one.
What we cannot have—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want this—is a situation in which the Commission is frustrated in working by a denial of political freedom, and the right hon. Gentleman rightly asked that there should be political freedom in the negotiations.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman has been working against this settlement from the start.—[Interruption.]—almost before the terms were known. It must be for the Commission to decide whether it can properly do its work. The right hon. Gentleman always interfered with the people he appointed to do certain jobs, but I am not going to do that.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not self-evident, however strongly we feel, that there is certainly intimidation on one side and probably intimidation on both? Is it not, then, the principal function of the Commission to assess the value and effect of that intimidation, and should we not be wise to leave that assessment to it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend has said in rather better terms what I have tried to say.

Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in his original answer, which was presumably a prepared one, he did not rely on physical inability to control Mr. Smith but said "I cannot question his right" to do something? What statutory right does Mr. Smith have? [HON. MEMBERS: "None."]

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I said that I could not question Mr. Smith's right to maintain security provided the minimum of force was used.

Mr. Dykes: My right hon. Friend has established, I think rightly, the difference between the two sides of the House on a genuine desire to see a settlement. Following his statement on Friday, is he equally confident that Mr. Smith still, as he said earlier, wants a settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not know why Mr. Smith should have gone to all the trouble of signing the settlement if he did not want it. [Interruption.] I remind the House that in terms of independence for Rhodesia, this House has to do nothing until Mr. Smith has put through all the legislation which he promised in his own Parliament.

Mr. Thorpe: Did not Mr. Smith give a personal guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman that normal political activity would be permitted? Is not the right hon. Gentleman therefore entitled to satisfy himself as to why Mr. Todd was interned? Is it not a fact that he does not know why?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because the bishop was not a member of a political party in the House there, he has been denied the right to broadcast, so that his appeal for law and order will not be heard? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he would be right to say that he will not be pushed around


any more, even though another ex-Prime Minister may be?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party would, I believe, also like me to withdraw the settlement.

Mr. Thorpe: indicated dissent.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: With great respect, he, too, falls into the error of quoting only one part of the sentence. I agree that Mr. Smith said that normal political activity should be allowed, but provided it took place in a peaceful and democratic manner. The second part must be a complement to the first.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Should not those who are keen, as we are all keen, for normal political activity be the first to desire law and order in Rhodesia? Is it not extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition should criticise detention without trial in Rhodesia when fully approving of detention without trial in Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom? Cannot we get rid of one piece of Opposition nonsense, namely, that Miss Todd is a political moderate?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Obviously the conditions in Rhodesia, as every hon. Member must appreciate, are of extreme delicacy and difficulty. I think that Lord Pearce is handling the matter extremely well and I must await further reports from him.

Mr. Paget: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear a question put just now as to whether he felt Mr. Smith still desired a settlement? Mr. Smith was a little doubtful about a settlement, and he is a man who sometimes changes his mind. If he has changed his mind, ought we to make it easier for him by withdrawing the Pearce Commission?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no reason to believe that Mr. Smith has changed his mind.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Despite the differences of opinion which have been expressed across the Floor of the House today, is it not important that we should all recollect that both sides of the House are agreed that the Pearce Commission should continue its work? Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will convey to Mr. Smith and everyone

else in Rhodesia, including Lord Pearce, that the House is entirely behind Lord Pearce continuing the exercise?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should certainly like to be able to do that.

Mr. Healey: In that context, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary did not wish to mislead the House, but he has rightly placed great weight on the statement made by Lord Pearce on 21st January. If you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me, I shall quote the two references on which I hope the Foreign Secretary will comment. First, speaking of the refusal of political meetings in the tribal trust lands, Lord Pearce stated:
We cannot accept that a total denial of any political activities can be read into an agreement which does not specifically exclude them.
This is one area where Lord Pearce must be told that normal political activities are not being permitted.
The other was a reference, widely understood, to the arrests of Mr. Todd and, later, of Mr. Chinamano:
If people are detained simply to silence them, then even in existing conditions it is not allowing normal political activity.
What the House wants and what it has not yet had is an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that he will press Mr. Smith to honour those parts of his agreement which, according to Lord Pearce, he has broken. This is one of the main matters which we shall wish to pursue with the Foreign Secretary when we come to debate the matter.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I did not think that there was anything to answer. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would pursue the matters. I agree that he has read out the quotations fairly.

CORNISH COAST (CHEMICALS)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that the operation to clear the beaches of Cornwall of drums washed from the sea was successfully completed over the weekend, with no injury to people or property.


Of about 150 drums washed up none contained toxic chemicals and those which contained inflammable material were blown up. The rest are now being disposed of by the local authority.
Following the "Torrey Canyon" incident it was agreed that local authorities should take the lead in dealing with oil on beaches with support as necessary from central Government. A similar procedure was followed in this case, and I congratulate all concerned—the local authorities, the Navy, the Coastguard and its auxiliary volunteers, and the several private firms whose scientists gave help—on the speed and efficiency of their actions.
The normal practice whereby the coastguard informs the local authorities about such threats, and whereby a local authority looks to central help only if it is unable to cope with the problem itself works well. In this case the coastguard told local authorities about drums from the s.s. "Germania" on 13th January. My Department was told on the morning of Friday, 14th January, of the potentially dangerous nature of the cargo. The Cornwall County Council was then asked if it required help.
It accepted; and help was sent by air that evening. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State kept constant and close watch over the incident and himself visited Cornwall on 20th January and was satisfied that the operation was running smoothly and effectively. Hazardous cargoes may be carried by most cargo ships; unfortunately there was no warning in Lloyds List or elsewhere about the "Germania's" cargo.
The incident does disclose the urgent need for international agreement on better procedures to be followed when potentially dangerous cargos are lost at sea. Much work was already in hand before this incident and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is proposing, as a matter of urgency, at the next meeting of the I.M.C.O. Maritime Safety Committee that, where vessels carrying hazardous cargoes are involved in incidents in which such cargoes are lost or might be lost, the governments of countries whose coastlines are at risk should be immediately informed by the flag State.
Meanwhile, one of the research ships of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is sampling fish in the area of the wreck and another the sea water in the area. This monitoring will continue until the Ministry of Agriculture think there is no need for further surveillance.
Against that background, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wishes me to assure the House and the public that fish caught by our vessels are completely safe for human consumption.
Finally, careful surveillance is being maintained by all concerned to protect our beaches for holiday makers and all other users.

Mr. Crosland: The House will be relieved to hear that the threat to the Cornish coastline is apparently over, and the whole House will wish to echo the congratulations proffered by the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, this incident has left behind some anxieties and unanswered questions. I put three points to the Secretary of State.
First, is it not the case that the Department of Trade and Industry knew of this incident almost immediately after the wreck of the ship occurred, a few days before Christmas, but did not inform local authorities or the Department of the Environment because, as mentioned in the statement, there was no warning in Lloyd's list or elsewhere about the "Germania's" cargo? If that is so, is there not something seriously wrong with the Lloyd's list and wrong with the information available to the Department of Trade and Industry. This failure led to a delay of very nearly a month before any preventive action could be taken.
Second, even after that delay, was there not a further delay of some days due to the difficulty of discovering the ship's manifest and, having discovered it, translating and comprehending what it meant? Does not this suggest that we need a very much better and quicker notification system so that some court authority knows exactly what cargo is in every ship? May I take it that the prime purpose of the I.M.C.O. meeting mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will be to secure such an improvement in notification?
Lastly, one reads in the Press—naturally one does not know whether to believe it—that the majority of the drums on board the "Germania" were not washed ashore but went down with the wreck of the ship, and that the ones that went down were mainly the ones carrying the dangerous toxic chemicals? The right hon. Gentleman talked about surveillance being carried out by a Ministry of Agriculture research ship, but, supposing that this surveillance showed that there was cause for concern, from the drums that presumably are now lying on the sea bed, and a hazard to either fisheries or marine life, what further action would the Government take? Would they undertake a salvage operation?

Mr. Walker: On the first question, the recent sinking of the Spanish ship carrying German cargo which sank off the French coast, it is not the practice every time a ship or cargo sinks, in this case, many miles from the English coast, that coastguards are informed. As soon as the coastguards, who are part of the Department of Trade and Industry, see any barrels coming from a ship, action is taken immediately to inform local authorities. It has never been the practice that coastguards warn of every ship sunk many miles from the English coast, as this one was.
As soon as we knew from the manifest that there was a dangerous cargo aboard, immediate action was taken to obtain the manifest and an appropriate translation. A great deal of speedy work was done to that extent. Many details of the manifest contain trade names, which meant nothing in chemical terms. Very quick action was taken to find out what chemicals were involved. But this incident does disclose an urgent need for international agreement that whenever a dangerous cargo on a foreign ship goes down immediate notification is made so that the countries concerned can take action. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the main purpose of the representations that my right hon. Friend is making. As for the cargoes which have gone down with the ship, we have made inquiries and these chemicals were in the parts of the ship which were on fire for three days before the ship sank. It was a very considerable fire. It is virtually certain that

the dangerous chemicals concerned were burned before the ship sank. There is obviously a slight risk that this is not so, or that the cargo was not stacked where it was said to be. If this is so, the appropriate action will be taken.

Mr. Atkinson: Mr. Speaker, would you give the House your guidance about the priorities chosen by Ministers, in that later in the week the House will have one hour longer to debate admission charges to museums than it will have to discuss today the 1½ million unemployed in Britain and the crisis economic situation which now exists? Would you, Mr. Speaker, care to comment on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I might be tempted to comment, but it is not a matter for me. I have no control except, for example, when I try to curtail the proceedings on Private Notice Questions, and then I am rebuked myself, but I do the best I can.

Mr. Nott: May I add my congratulations to those offered by the Minister to those who worked during this incident? I welcome his statement, and in particular the point that he made about international co-operation. Is it not the case that this incident has been rather over-publicised and exaggerated, not least by one or two Members of the House, to the potential detriment of the Cornish holiday industry. May I ask my right hon. Friend where he will be taking his summer holiday if by any chance we have one in this House?

Mr. Walker: On the first point, I think it is right that the public should show some concern about this matter. It has disclosed that there is a gap in international arrangements which should be closed as quickly as possible, and therefore I welcome the interest in the topic.
The Cornish and other beaches are safe for holiday-makers. I had booked a holiday there immediately before this incident occurred, and I have retained my booking.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will welcome that statement—almost any statement—about five weeks after the s.s. "Germania" sank? I should like to


add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman's to all the Cornish authorities, particularly the emergency services and the local authority, for the way in which they handled this crisis.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there has been widespread criticism, both in the Press and in the country, by local council officials of the lack of co-operation between Government Departments, and this has provided a picture of bungling incompetence of the utmost extreme? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report that a senior official of his Department said that although the Department had plans to deal with oil pollution, no plans at all existed to deal with chemical pollution? Is that true? If it is, does it not reveal criminal negligence?

Mr. Walker: When criticism appeared of the Government's handling of this incident, I personally phoned the chairman of the county council and the clerk of the county council and asked if there was any criticism, whether they were dissatisfied with any matters, and whether they were getting the help for which they had asked. They categorically assured me that they were not dissatisfied, and that day the chairman of the county council, with the agreement of the clerk of the county council, issued a statement thanking Government Departments for the full help they had received.
As for the criticism of local authorities, one criticism that I have heard is the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has tended somewhat to exaggerate the circumstances and the potential effect of this incident on Cornwall.
There is a laid down procedure for dealing with oil, but not with chemicals. As regards any threat to the coast, there is a proper procedure: the Department, through the coastguards, immediately informs local authorities, and that is what it did in this case.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be the wish of the House that we should move on. Hon. Members who want to question the Minister on his statement can do so in the ordinary way.

RHODESIA

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should receive urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Foreign Secretary to ensure that the Smith régime permits normal political activity in Rhodesia during the test of acceptability by the Pearce Commission.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has stated the ground on which he seeks to move the Adjournment of the House. From the exchanges today during Questions it is obvious how much interest is taken in this matter by the House, but I have simply to decide whether the correct way to debate this matter is under the Standing Order. I am not of that opinion, and I must decline the application.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this following your decision. If that is the decision, may I ask the Leader of the House whether there should not be urgent discussions through the usual channels to see whether Government time can be provided to debate this highly important matter which, in the view of many hon. Members, is urgent and cannot wait for normal procedures, because the denial of freedom in Rhodesia is happening now and must be prejudicing the work of the Pearce Commission.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): May I say that discussions can, of course, take place, but there are alternatives. First, the Opposition have a Supply Day next Monday. They also have the right, under the Standing Order, to take a half-day Supply Day on urgent notice if that is what they wish to do. If that is their wish, I should be prepared to make arrangements, through the usual channels, for that to take place.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Sir H. Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I briefly bring to your attention an article in the East Anglian Daily Times, which may represent a breach of privilege of this House.—


[Interruption.]—normally hon. Gentlemen opposite are very concerned about the privileges of the House.
In this article Mr. Wynne Morgan, the Managing Director and Chairman of Masterplan, a firm of publicity agents employed by Essex County Council, made disparaging remarks about the activities of this House and the Local Government Bill going through it. He says that there is too much government by stealth. He likens the situation to a sort of trial where the public is the jury and they have to give a verdict. Surely it is the Members of the House, when a Bill is going through, who decide and no one else?
He also said that he has taken a great part in getting the alteration to the decision of the Colchester Borough Council. He has indulged in great lobbying of Members of Parliament, and as a result of his activities he claims that the odds now are six-to-four in favour of alterations to the Bill.
I believe that that, if not exactly a breach of privilege, is a reflection on the rights of Members of this House.

Copy of newspaper handed in.

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider what the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) has said and rule tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition to move his Motion, I have to inform the House that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the names of the Leader of the Liberal Party and others to leave out from 'House' to the end and to add:
'recalling that both Labour and Conservative administrations have been elected on the strength of promises to maintain full employment, noting with disgust that between January, 1966 and January, 1970 unemployment rose by 80 per cent. and from January, 1970 to January, 1972 by a further 56 per cent., censures both Labour and Conservative administrations for their disastrous economic policies which have resulted in more than a million unemployed, and has no confidence in either Party to conquer unemployment'
but it will be in order for its substance to be discussed during the debate on the main Question.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move,
That this House, recalling that the present administration was elected on the strength of a clear and specific pledge by the Prime Minister to reduce unemployment at a stroke, censures Her Majesty's Government for the fact that their doctrinaire and irresponsible policies have forced the total of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom to 1,023,583 persons.
Before I come to the Motion itself, I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister how much we deplore the incident to which he was subjected over the weekend, and to express our sympathy.
On behalf of the whole House I should like to welcome the right hon. Gentleman back from his visit to Europe. Back to reality. The reality of the Government's attainment of 1,020,000 unemployed.
A national newspaper on Friday morning, headlining the right hon. Gentleman's achievement, prefaced the announcement with one word, "Shameful", and so it is. The tragedy of the situation, the

censure which, in the mind of the whole nation, adheres in the Prime Minister and his Government, is this, and we have seen it in this House underlined in speech after speech, in answer after answer as the unemployment figures month after month have approached this figure, and we shall undoubtedly get it again in the right hon. Gentleman's speech today, and it is simply this, that the right hon. Gentleman feels no sense of shame.
On Thursday the right hon. Gentleman issued a characteristically petulant statement about the reception that he had at Question Time. In that statement there was not a word of regret that a million of his fellow citizens were condemned to involuntary idleness, and their families to insecurity. Not a word of admission that this is the result of his Government's policies, and no less of his own characteristic personal style of dehumanised government. I make this prediction, that in the speech he makes today there is still no shame, there is still no acceptance of Ministerial, still less Prime Ministerial, responsibility for this achievement, that we shall get the same excuses and alibis, this usual craven attribution of vicarious responsibility to every individual and institution in this land except the man who is responsible. We have heard it all so often. 
The Prime Minister, who has sought, and won, the plaudits of the Alf Garnetts of his party especially in the A/B category, to say nothing of the sycophants of the Tory Press, by the cheap jibes about lame ducks, the admonitions to their fellow-citizens to stand on their own two feet, has not got the guts to stand on his own two feet, to stand his corner, after more than 19 months, for the consequences of his own policies.
In my innocence I asked him—[Interruption.]—and I shall prove this, after the right hon. Gentleman had been in office for only seven months, how much longer he had to be there before he took responsibility for his decisions. That was 12 months ago, and we shall not get that responsibility today. Let us not hear that it is the unions, or their members, or the unemployed themselves, whose craft, whose skill, whose desire for secure security for themselves and their families, are cast on the scrap heap. They have an undeniable right to continuity of employment to exercise that craft; a right


far transcending the right of the right hon. Gentleman to continue to exercise his.
I wish he could have accompanied me into the employment exchanges of Kirkby and Prescot just as the January unemployed register was being counted a couple of months ago. I wish he could have seen the dole queues. I wish he could have seen the Kirkby juvenile register—351 boys and 273 girls; some of last Easter's school leavers still without a job—and could have joined me in the sense of shame that this is British civilisation, 1972.
Last Friday he left these shores, the first dole queue millionaire to cross the Channel since Neville Chamberlain. I was thinking of him as he went, and I was pleased to read that he conducted a madrigal. I wish he could have been with me meeting the shop stewards of Fisher-Bendix, attempting to avert a further 750 redundancies and the total closure of that factory, following hundreds of redundancies last year, to prevent the closure of a factory which was established with a prospective employment of thousands on the basis of lavish unstinted Government money paid out like water, with no regard to cost, not many years ago. There need be no murmurs about that. I did not see the papers although it was in my constituency. The President of the Board of Trade did not show them to me, because he was the right hon. Gentleman, now the Prime Minister. They poured out the money, and now it is closing, with no action from right hon. Gentlemen opposite to prevent it.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman could have heard the madrigal that my constituents were singing about him. I will speak for them as I have the right and the duty to do so. So have a large number of my hon. Friends, faced with similar factory situations, far more than the number who can hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this debate. An equal duty rests on many hon. Members opposite who know the facts in their own constituencies. We shall see whether they discharge that duty in their speeches and, still more, in their votes tonight. Many of them would not be here, any more than the right hon. Gentleman would be sitting where he is, but for the meretricious pledges they gave, following the

lead that he gave them, about employment—not about preventing any increase in unemployment—and, not just that, but about reducing unemployment which he was pledged to do in that famous statement two days from polling day. There sits the man who, almost on the very eve of polling, pledged himself to reduce—his word—unemployment at a stroke. Does he deny that pledge? He may say that it was not the pledge that won the election. He may say that he won the election by his appeal to housewives, based on his clear pledge directly to reduce prices.
We can all gauge the sincerity of that pledge. If hon. Members opposite cannot, the housewife voters have, and will increasingly do so when the housing legislation becomes law, when the V.A.T. takes effect, and fares and milk. He made his pledges on bread prices, fares and school meals.
Even if the right hon. Gentleman seeks to wriggle out of all that about prices, does he deny that if he had told the country the truth about employment, he would have been abjectedly consigned in the election to oblivion? Does he deny that that would have been the result if he had told them that on Conservative policies on which he had already decided, unemployment would not be reduced at a stroke or in any other way, that it would increase to 1,020,000 in 19 months, and that with normal wintry weather there would be many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, more?
Does the right hon. Gentleman, who used not improperly from this box to draw a distinction between unemployment figures and the fall in employment, deny that on that test of those registered unemployed plus the numbers not registering for employment because they have no hope of employment, the real unemployment figure is well over 1¼ million and perhaps 1½ million? If we are debating a social tragedy today, let us record for many, though not all, that for those who cease to register it is a final irrevocable decision of despair, particularly if they are getting older. The right hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for this.
This is the much vaunted man of principle we heard so much about in the last election. This is the three times


winner of the £38,000 prize for integrity from the Rothermere-Aitken-Hartwell-Rees-Mogg foundation. Would the right hon. Gentleman have been addressing the House from the Dispatch Box if he had honestly admitted that those policies would create a loss of jobs available for those whose votes he was canvassing, even greater than the increase in the unemployment figures themselves? When he answers this question, let him watch his back. While he was away, even the Daily Express, whose capacity for masticating and digesting his policies without apparent nausea has become a by-word, even in the Tory Press, developed an unaccustomed fastidity and dietetic discrimination in its leading article last Friday.
Does he repudiate the speeches on which he won the election? In his election party political broadcast he said, after an impassioned eulogy of freedom:
You should have the freedom to be an individual and no one individual should have to be like any other.
Today 1 million of those to whom he was appealing are in the dole queues. In the dole queue there is no freedom; there are no differentiations. For them the universal leveller is the denial of freedom to work.
Did he or did he not on 12th June, 1970 attack me, in one of his well-known ad hominen speeches, for the fact that there were 86,000 unemployed in Scotland? Today there are 154,000 unemployed in Scotland.
Does he deny that in Bradford, in the election week, when his main argument was that the balance of payments surplus we had achieved was "slipping away"—that is another mark of his integrity—his description of the economy was one of high employment. If he does not deny saying that, let him say today how he does view the economy. Would he like to be reminded of his speech on regional unemployment in Dundee on 9th September, 1969? I challenge him to defend that here. He said:
We cannot toierate the waste of human and economic resources brought about by their uneven use in different parts of the country. We"— 
talking of the Conservatives—
refuse to condemn large parts of the kingdom to slow decline and decay, to dereliction and to persistent unemployment in pursuit of old-

fashioned 19th century doctrines of laissez-faire.
That is when he was after votes. He went on to say:
We shall act. We shall act to bring new life to those areas suffering from high unemployment or depopulation. We shall act to encourage a sensible spread of industry. We shall act to enable the wealth that comes with it to be enjoyed in all parts of Scotland and across all parts of Britain.
Let the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he denies using those words and seeing that they got full publicity. That was in September 1969. In Dundee when he spoke unemployment was 2,633. Today is is 8,770. The unemployment percentage in Dundee then was 2·9 per cent. Now it is 9·8 per cent. The unemployment rate for men in Dundee today is 12·3 per cent. I challenge him to confirm or deny these figures; then to tell the House how he reconciles the failure of Tory fact, to realise the glossy Tory promises that he made before the election.
Today we want no excuses, no blaming the past for the fact that unemployment in Dundee has gone up from 2·9 per cent. to 9·8 per cent. Of course, there was the Tay Bridge disaster in 1879. But let him stand on his own feet and say what is the real cause of the situation.
It was not only the Prime Minister who said these things, though his colleagues have never challenged his record for integrity, which I have been exposing this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) is to wind up the debate. I ask him to address himself to these words:
This record
—the unemployment figures just published—
is a damning indictment of the Government's economic policy and their good faith … the present level of unemployment is a direct result of Government policy, and they cannot deny it".
Those were his words at the General Election. The unemployment figure to which he was referring, published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), was 577,800, or 612,000 with Northern Ireland. Today his figure is 1,023,000—that is more than 400,000 up.
In the House at that time, in May, 1970, the right hon. Member for Mitcham referred to Labour charges before 1951


—let him think about this—that a Conservative Government would mean unemployment. He told the House:
This did not prove to be so, nor will this happen next time".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 422.]
He is the Minister publishing today's figures.
A sense of compassion prevents me from quoting from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In those days, free of care, and equally free of truth, he was chairman of the Conservative Party, the party he has now conspired in leading into the morass of unemployment. He will forgive me for ignoring him. I assure him that it is not for want of courtesy. But, to rewrite Aneurin Bevan, why waste time on the simian when we have the organist in our sights? Before passing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, I offer him one piece of gratuitous advice, that in devising his future policies he should pay less attention to the men of the Stock Exchange and more attention to the men of the Labour exchange.
I invite the Prime Minister to join in a clinical analysis of the latest unemployment figures. Let us keep them clinical, as that is all he understands. He has spent the last 12 months proving that compassion and a sense of the human tragedy that these figures represent is a monopoly of this side of the House. Cost-benefit analysis, apparently, is the limit of his understanding.
Last Thursday, in the Evening Standard —nothing could be more honest and clinical than an Evening Standard headline—above two-inch high figures proclaiming "1,023,583" was a snide headline,
Shares hit 500 as jobless tops million
And that after all that the right hon. Gentleman has done for Ian Smith.
The overall figure is 1,023,583. For wholly unemployed in Great Britain alone, excluding 10,000 school leavers, it is 918,595. In the past three months, the seasonally adjusted figure for wholly unemployed has rised by 59,100, against a mere 47,000 in the previous three months. Moreover, many of my hon. Friends, if they are able to catch the eye of the Chair, will produce evidence of devastating new redundancy figures announced this year which have not yet

swollen the ranks of the unemployed, as I can from my own development area constituency. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman studies the redundancy figures each day. No doubt, he will give all the prospective redundancy figures operative for the period after publication of the present figures.
There has been an increase in wholly unemployed in Great Britain alone of 211,000 since January, 1970, the last January of the Labour Government. No seasonal correction need be made. There has been a rise from 3 per cent. to 4·3 per cent.
We all remember how the late Lain Macleod, backed by the present Secretary of State, used to give the number of months in which unemployment under a Labour Government exceeded 500,000—and that at a time still of inherited balance of payments deficit when we were having to restrict desirable increases in production in order to create the surplus which was absolutely essential if we were to go forward to full employment, that surplus which we handed over to the Prime Minister but which he has neglected to use for that purpose. It was £600 million, yet he was denying it in election week. Let him laugh that off.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: What about the Tay Bridge?

Mr. Wilson: I am quoting from June, 1970. Last week, the Secretary of State for Employment published figures showing that, since last March, unemployment, far from meeting the half-million test which he used to use, has not fallen below three-quarters of a million. Let him tell us tonight when, on his analysis, it will fall even to three-quarters of a million again, let alone 500,000.
I shall take the right hon. Gentleman now on a tour through the unemployment figures for the regions. He does not see much of them. [Interruption.] He certainly does not. I do not know which one he would like to me to take, but I should like to help him, because I know he is looking for a constituency, so I shall begin with the South-East.
Today, the figures are published for the South-East and Greater London together. Unemployment today in the


South-East is 2·4 per cent., against 1·8 per cent. in January, 1970, just two years ago, and 1·4 per cent. for Greater London. In East Anglia, it is 3·6 per cent. today, compared with 2·4 per cent. in January, 1970—half as much again. Is that what hon. Members who gained Norfolk seats told their electors in 1970?
For the East Midlands, it was 2·4 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 3·6 per cent. today. For the South-West, it was 3·2 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 4·2 per cent. today. For Yorkshire and Humberside, it was 3 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 4·8 per cent. today—60 per cent. up.
For the North-West, it was 2·7 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 5 per cent. today—nearly double and still rising. For the West Midlands, it was 2·1 per cent. in January 1970; it is 5 per cent. today—nearly 2½ times as high. For Wales, it was 4·3 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 5·8 per cent. today. For the Northern region, it was 5·2 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 6·9 per cent. today. For Scotland it was 4·4 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 7·1 per cent. today.
Let us consider, next, male unemployment. I think that the Secretary of State for Employment will confirm that, if the figures separated the men from the boys here, they would show an even more appalling situation. For the South-East, it was 2·5 per cent. in January, 1970; and 2·1 per cent. for London. Today, the figure for the combined region is 3·4 per cent. In East Anglia, it was 3·2 per cent. two years ago; it is now 4·9 per cent. For the East Midlands, it was 3·3 per cent.; it is now 5 per cent. For Yorkshire and Humberside, it was 4·2 per cent.; it is now 6·6 per cent.
Continuing with the figures for male unemployment: for the West Midlands, it was 2·8 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 6·7 per cent. today. For the North-West, it was 3·8 per cent.; it is 6·9 per cent. today. For Wales, it was 5·3 per cent. in January, 1970; it is 7·3 per cent. today. For the Northern region it was 6·9 per cent.; it is 9·1 per cent. today. For Scotland it was 5·9 per cent.; it is 9·3 per cent. today.
Those are the male unemployment figures, and they are all on an identical

seasonal basis, as one is taking the last January of the Labour Government and this January.
Regions which have not known unemployment since the war are now harder hit by Tory mismanagement than all the worst development areas in the last January of the Labour Government—areas which were then improving and growing more hopeful for the future.

Mr. F. A. Burden: No.

Mr. Wilson: Certainly, they were. I do not understand that the Gillingham constituency was part of a development area, but it will very soon be one.

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman said "all".

Mr. Wilson: I said "the worst development areas".

Mr. Burden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that, after the debate on devaluation, he said that within the next year there would be more jobs than people capable of filling them? That was a promise, In fact, unemployment increased.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misquoted that speech. What happened in the 2½ years following devaluation was that unemployment barely rose by about 25,000, compared with the 300,000 it has risen under the Tory Government.
I want to give some more figures to the Prime Minister because I know that he is a willing learner when he has the figures. [Interruption.] I was talking about development area figures. I had given the development area figures, and I had said that the position there was improving in January, 1970, as my hon. Friends know very well. Scotland had 5·9 per cent. in January, 1970, and the West Midlands, the classic model, the epitome of full employment for a generation, now has 6·7 per cent., worse than Scotland was when we went out of office and worse not only than in 1939 but at any time since the Great Depression. The Northern region, which was still hardest hit in January, 1970, then had 6·9 per cent.; today, the North-West has climbed from 3·8 per cent. to the same figure as had the hardest hit development area. As I have said, all are now getting worse.
In May, 1970, speaking of regional unemployment, the Secretary of State used these words:
It is about time that the Government stopped belittling this problem and started to take it seriously ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 420.]
I have quoted the figures for now and compared them with what they were then.
Hon. Members know that even these disgraceful figures conceal individual areas where the male unemployment rate is now well into double figures and some which are as depressed as in the 1930s. They know, too, the human tragedy created by the inevitably soulless figures of the duration of unemployment, of six months lasting into 12 months and beyond; for men over 50, or even over 45, the feeling of hopelessness, of being unwanted by this system of society.
There are the very serious figures in parts of the country for the very youngest workers, including apprentices, and those who have just become fully skilled craftsmen and who find that no one wants their craft. What this means is that regions which have not known unemployment for 30 years are harder hit than they were two years ago. It means that hundreds of thousands of men who, if under 45, have not known the family tragedy which unemployment means—and there are many of us on this side of the House and perhaps some hon. Members opposite who know in personal and family terms what it means—who have not known even a workmate to be out of a job, now face unemployment.
The right hon. Gentleman, who has repeatedly made clear his attitude to the trade unions and their members, can now proudly claim that he has taught them a lesson, a lesson of what Tory policy really means. For them this is the "Better Tomorrow" he promised in his manifesto, with that glossy photograph of him to commend sales, the title which he chose for his manifesto which secured his election. Today they are feeling the bitter tomorrow which he has inflicted on our constituents and on his own supporters.
The figures I have given are for the wholly unemployed, excluding school leavers. Unemployed school leavers, including school leavers in the 1970–71

class, including last Easter, are 10,000 today against 4,000 in January, 1970. Is this the land of opportunity which he promised their mothers when he was soliciting the housewives' vote in 1970?
What of white collar unemployment? I do not know whether hon. Members opposite, as my hon. Friends and I still do, hold constituency services or advice surgeries; I suspect that many do. They will know, and I hope that they will tell the House today, what it means for the man who says, "It cannot happen to me", what it means for his family, his mortgage. He is a man with a proud stake in the country—we remember the great phrase—the man with his car, so important to him, perhaps it was a firm's car. What of his commitments and plans for this year's holiday, or the education of his children and his hopes for the future?
It was such votes that hon. Members opposite were soliciting in June, 1970, and not without success, for that is why they are in office. But those who were conned by them in 1970 now find themselves betrayed by those whom they trusted, and those they trusted are betrayed by the incompetence and the callous indifference of the man who leads them. That is what they have to defend in their constituencies.
No doubt in answering constituents' letters they can find sympathetic words to the effect that the Stock Exchange has passed its 500 peak and that property developers and speculators are making an unprecedented killing. We read in every daily newspaper that that is the sign of a boom, but the truth is that the Stock Exchange dealers, who in a whole lifetime have never added a penny piece to the wealth and welfare of the country, were pouring out champagne last Thursday and the "in" people, who had advance notice of a take-over bid, are flaunting their success in the two-nations' economy over which the right hon. Gentleman now so proudly presides.
I come to graduate unemployment. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of this? In the Government of which he was a member, Lord Boyle, who must be happily relieved of the necessity of stomaching his former leader's policies at home and abroad, announced a policy for greatly increasing the numbers in the universities and other institutions of higher education,


derided by the establishment of the day as unjustifiable, unnecessary and undesirable—" more means worse", thundered The Times. But the Labour Government accepted the Conservative higher education programme and greatly improved on it.
What has happened? All the authorities are agreed that the unemployment rate of last summer's graduates is around 10 per cent. Seven months from their degree examinations and the Tory society has no jobs for them! Now already we are seeing a diminishing rate of increase of new candidates for higher education and those from working-class families feel themselves alienated and unwanted in this area. The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science, with her losing battle against comprehensive education, is encouraging them to feel unwanted.
The Prime Minister glories in the challenge of the Common Market, and we have heard that again this week-end, while characteristically ignoring the challenge of the wider world. But even with his restricted diocese, does he not realise that the future of Britain in world trade and the future of Britain in the Market requires that in Britain's interest every boy and girl now at school must be given the fullest facilities for realising his inherent talents if we are to compete with the remorseless challenge not only of the Market, but of America, Japan and the Soviet Union? All he has to offer in face of the world scientific and technological challenge is 10 per cent. graduate unemployment, a notice saying "Not wanted". The only international challenges he recognises are Mr. Mintoff and the Indian Ocean waves lapping on the shores of South Africa.
It is perhaps vain to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman about the human implications of the figures which his right hon. Friend has announced and on which his hon. Friends waved their Order Papers last Thursday when he came into the House after them. So much for the facts. Hon. Members in all parts of the House can fill in the facts. None can deny them but hon. Members can give more details from their own constituencies. Now I come to the causes.
The first is the right hon. Gentleman. Yesterday's Sunday Times called on him

to demonstrate an obsession with the unemployment problem. Personally, and I believe that other hon. Members do, I acquit him of a desire to see the unemployment figures so high. At the lowest his daily calculation of the discounted cash flow of electoral probabilities will probably preclude anything so electorally damaging. But unemployment has not been his Prime Ministerial obsession. By common consent, the danger point was last April after the demonstrated failure of the Budget strategy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Was the right hon. Gentleman then obsessed by the worsening unemployment trends last spring? Not a bit—he was obsessed by Europe. If the right hon. Gentleman had served the cause of the right to work of the British people, a right of which he is custodian, with one-tenth of the energy which he has devoted to wooing the French President, we should not be having this debate today.
But even before that his obsession had done irreparable damage. Within days of taking office he was concerned with the implementation of those of his speeches in preceding years which had evoked the loudest cheers from the more ignorant of the Tory faithful—the Monday Club, the Institute of Directors, the Friedmanites, the Cobdenites, the anti-public enterprisers, the Aims of Industry, the Economic League and the rest. But hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to take responsibility for their Government and for the cause of this unemployment.
In the halcyon days of July, 1970, as his first act we saw the disappearance of the Prices and Incomes Board. We warned him that that doctrinaire decision would be fatal, not only to action to restrain prices, but fatal to prospects of any agreement on a voluntary prices and incomes policy which must be the necessary guarantee of sustained growth without demand inflation. We were committed to industrial expansion because we, for the first time, could have relied on the balance of payments strength which we had built up.
The right hon. Gentleman, although he had that to rely on, immediately goes into wrecking action. He abolished the I.R.C. just because of an ill-considered speech he had made in Scotland in 1969. There are few in the City or industry


who now do not wish to see the I.R.C. restored in some form or another. The right hon. Gentleman has not told the House yet—no doubt he will announce it—that the Government are to set up an I.R.C. for Northern Ireland. It has all been agreed to and he is about to announce it. There is an undoubted case for it, but the case for an I.R.C. should not just depend upon violence. We have hard-hit regions in England and Wales and Scotland with the same enormous problems which are entitled to the same remedies.
In those early weeks we saw his utter obsession with the unions—an unnecessary dock strike to show who was master but which did not. I do not accuse the Prime Minister of seeking higher unemployment to coerce the unions; the charge against him is that because of his political obsessionism the achievement of full employment for the first time since the war has no longer been the top priority in the higher reaches and the highest reaches of Government.
In the autumn of 1970 there was the decision to end investment grants. The right hon. Gentleman could not have had anything against them except that they were introduced by his political opponents. What he did by that action was to create uncertainty and insecurity by removing the proved best incentive to capital investment. For him, with his philosophy about only the successful being rewarded there was this vague benefit of an investment tax allowance on proved profits with no thought of the small firm building itself up with perhaps a low profit achievement, or the older firm which needed to modernise by new investment at the sacrifice of profits for two or three years.
Quick profits were the test, quick profits, smart profits, slick profits, however earned, were to be the mainspring of the economy. In the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy a quick pound earned by property speculation, land speculation, merger speculation or some swift manoeuvre in the unit trust society counted just as much as a pound earned the hard way by exports, technological innovation or by sheer hard work. Above all—[Laughter.]—hon. Gentlemen can laugh at the effects of investment grants on development areas but if they go

there they will find that both sides of industry will tell them that this was a death blow to employment in the development areas as well as other vulnerable regions.
Then we had the tight credit squeeze, the expenditure cuts, prescription charges, school meal charges. A Government which today in its unemployment panic is spending money like water could not find £9 million for milk for the seven-year olds. There was the peremptory instructions to public industry. In October, 1970, the Chancellor ordered them to cut their investment programmes. Now, doctrine thrown to the wind, the Government are using the investment programmes of the nationalised industries in their panic search for expansion as they did in 1962—calling in the new world of public industry, because it is plannable, to redress the balance of the old unplannable undisciplined private sector on which in the summer and autumn of 1970 the right hon. Gentleman had pinned his hopes. Even the private sector had to go through it. I warned the House in October, 1970, of the doctrine of the spectacular bankruptcy.
We wondered where it would be. British Leyland, much advertised as one possibility, fortunately survived. The Government started in a small way with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board—widows and orphans stuff, not the really big stuff. Then they got going with Rolls-Royce, Upper Clyde and other major industries. It is unfair to say that the right hon. Gentleman had no industrial policy remembering the action in those months, which he must regret, over Mersey Docks, Rolls-Royce and Upper Clyde. Remembering that, it is clear he did have a carefully worked-out industrial policy, worked out years in advance—a policy which displayed all the selectivity, the finesse and compassion of a clog-iron. In all the glorious history of clog-iron combat there has never been a fighter like "Clogger Ted", the only clogger to obtain a million by his own personal efforts.
Meanwhile his colleagues took the line from their chief. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—where is he now?—fresh from the glories of his "lame duck victory" moved in on industry. Upper Clyde, in so far as it is saved, was saved by one thing, the determined


militancy of its shop stewards and workers who forced him to think again. They were proclaiming what this Government refuse to proclaim—the right to work. Plessey's in Alexandria appealed to him for help; I raised Fisher-Bendix earlier today. In August I took up this business and asked for his intervention. The response to me was just the same as the response to Plessey's—the right hon. Gentleman ostentatiously washing his hands. All I got was a passed-on message from the then management. It is bad enough when, this afternoon, we had the Foreign Secretary whose highest ambition seems to be acting as a dragoman for Mr. Ian Smith. [Interruption.] We are coming nearer home now and perhaps hon. Gentlemen can understand this. I have no time for an industrial Minister who is satisfied in a case like this to be a messenger boy for Parkinson-Cowan.
In all this time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been acting with all the pallid vigour and initiative of an altar boy. I referred to his misconceived mini-Budget of October, 1970. The House will recall his Budget last spring—

Mr. Julian Critchley: What are the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions?

Mr. Wilson: I am coming to that in a moment. Hon. Gentlemen will have to take this whether they like it or not. I referred to the Chancellor's misconceived mini-Budget of 1970. The House will recall the Budget of last spring, the euphoria on the benches opposite, the waving of Order Papers. Hon. Members may not recall my comments on that occasion immediately after, but they will get them again now. I said:
My first impression is that … this Budget fails to rise to the occasion with which he was presented [Laughter.] When they have got over their Budget euphoria and looked across the two-year period and what the Chancellor has announced, hon. Members opposite will be less than enchanted by it…The Chancellor knows that in economic terms he is starting from a situation in which we are spiralling down into the deepest recession since the War… As I warned one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors 15 years ago—and the advice was not taken at the time—you can pull a piece of string, but you cannot push it. … It is a Budget which not only hon. Gentlemen opposite but the country as a whole will regret before many months are out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 1399–1407.]

Do any of them deny that today? Nothing caused more amusement than the reference to pushing a piece of string. Now nine months, three or four mini-Budgets and £4,000 million later, the right hon. Gentleman is still pushing that piece of string.
July was the Chancellor's tour de force. Even he was inebriated by the exuberance of his Treasury draft. He promised an effect on the unemployment figures in "a couple of months". That was in July. When he spoke, registered unemployment was 829,600. Today it is over 1,020,000. A couple of months, he will have learned, is a long time in politics.
By the autumn his break-through was postponed to the spring, then to the late spring, then next autumn. Yesterday every economic commentator gloomily forecast 800,000 unemployed by this time next year—my own estimate for some months past, on the assumption of no fundamental change in the Tory Government's policy, just as last April I forecast 1 million unemployed by this month.
The House will have seen both the Financial Times independent survey of industrialists, indicating little reduction in the basic, seasonably adjusted, rate of unemployment and yesterday's lead story in the Sunday Times business section headed "1,000,000; no hope of more jobs say top firms." The Secretary of State, in his speech in Cambridge last night, repeated the same warning. So let us not have from hon. Members opposite the usual excuses—that it is all the fault of the previous Government, of the trade unions, of prices and of strikes.
We have had the excuse about strikes before. Prior to the last election the Prime Minister spoke about strikes in nearly every speech he made, and certainly if there were a by-election or a Greater London Council election the next day. I wonder whether he has worked this out: by the end of this month, man-days lost through industrial stoppages will have reached 27 million after 19 months of the present Administration. I agree that losses of output through strikes during our period of office were too high, but the man-days lost in 19 months of the right hon. Gentleman's Administration represent more than the total man-days lost under the Labour


Government from October, 1964, to June, 1970. 
The Prime Minister used that as his great stick for beating the Labour Government. [Interruption.] I have given my calculation to the end of this month. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is checking the figures, but they have been checked—not to worry. My hon. Friends have frequently stressed the loss of man-days caused by strikes compared with the loss of man-days caused by unemployment. I calculate that the avoidable loss of output, of man-days, caused by unemployment as a result of the present Government's first 19 months of office—unregistered unemployment to offset against the irreducible minimum, whatever that is—is not the 27 million which the Government have achieved in respect of industrial stoppages but 300 million man-days. By the end of this month that figure will have increased very markedly.
I have dealt with the alibis which we must expect to hear tonight. Perhaps I have anticipated the right hon. Gentleman's speech in full. We may also hear from him the charge which he made twice just before the Recess, that the Opposition have, or, as he kindly put it, the Leader of the Opposition has, no policy for dealing with unemployment. I do not know where he has been all these months when my right hon. Friends and I have been setting out what needs to be done. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman heard it? Perhaps we should have put it in French and then he might have got a copy.
To put the matter in English—and I intend to conclude on this matter—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not like having these matters brought home to them, but since the Government have no policy—and that will be the whole basis of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—they might listen to ours. I propose to set out six points of principle which the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted but which I ask him to accept in his speech.
First, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to proclaim the right to work of the British trade unionist. Sixty-five years ago this party introduced a Right to

Work Bill in the House. Let the right hon. Gentleman at least accept the principle. "The right to work" is a phrase which has never been on his lips. Secondly, reaffirming the right to work, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assert the Government's duty to achieve and maintain full employment. Thirdly, I ask him to affirm the right of all the regions to the achievement of the same level of employment and prosperity as adheres in the more favoured regions. This is socially and morally right in human terms. The right hon. Gentleman is Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom and not just of the favoured area nearest to the Common Market.
The right to work is economically right. The whole history of the stop-go era which we are all resolved to end is one in which, following a slump leaving the development areas and other regions still under-employed, a boom develops which, in the more prosperous areas, rapidly pushes production close against capacity. The result under successive Governments has been that capacity shortages and shortages of skilled labour develop, the export drive from those key areas languishes, imports are sucked in, and a balance of payment crisis supervenes. Then the brakes are slammed on, and again we have nationwide measures which act most harshly against areas which have not recovered from the last slump. Through over-heating in the South, measures are invoked against Western and Northern areas which have barely emerged from the last freeze.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: For the sake of the Doubting Thomases on the benches opposite, will my right hon. Friend say loudly and clearly on behalf of the British labour movement that unemployment is no longer permissible as a means of regulating the economy?

Mr. Wilson: I have made clear, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear, that we accept the full right to work and will frame our policies on that basis. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is tittering. What does he find funny?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I was wondering why the right hon. Gentleman did not provide it for


650,000 unemployed during his period of office.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we created the situation for full employment—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman can smirk. He was the author of the £800 million debt which we had to pay.
Fourthly, the Government should realise—perhaps they have realised—that the events of this year have ruled out of court all those economists who have argued that a tolerable level, a moderately high level, of unemployment will contain inflation. The theory that 600,000, 700,000 or 800,000 unemployed would prevent miners from demanding wage increases and, even if they did, that employers could not afford to pay them has been totally exploded. We have always said that it was a bogus theory, and even with a million unemployed it does not work. There is no figure. And if any Government were to seek to raise the unemployment threshold for this purpose, every point by which it did so would be a further disincentive to increased investment, which is not only our surest safeguard against world competition, inside Or outside the Common Market, but is today the missing mainspring from the economy, the missing key to full employment.
That brings me to my fifth point. The right hon. Gentleman must now accept that the problem will not be solved by monetary or budgetary means or by an induced consumer boom. The present crisis has been caused by a total hiatus in business spending and industrial investment. Before Christmas, the Prime Minister in the House took consolation in the increased, as he put it, engineering orders, and now the figures from the Department of Trade and Industry of investment intentions have blown him right out of the water.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman even now understands how his "lame duck' policy has hammered business investment or how his repudiation of the Rolls-Royce contract, for example, is still being used, as top industrialists have told me, by foreign buyers to query the wisdom of accepting British export bids, not knowing, as they say, whether the Government will again put in the Official Receiver. We must never again be in a position in which 100,000 British jobs

depend on the vote of one maverick American senator. It came off last time; it might not come off again.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot go on pretending that the investment boom will come as a result of our joining the Common Market. We were told last October that if Parliament voted to join the E.E.C. there would be a surge forward in investment. I commend hon. Members to read the article which appeared on 14th January in the Lombard column of the Financial Times, which referred to the
Non-event that gives cause for concern".
In it there is an account of all the promises, pledges and forecasts that an affirmative vote on 28th October would unleash a great investment boom, and it goes on to describe what it calls the greatest non-event of the year.
I hope that the Prime Minister will tell us that he is no longer counting on that vote to get him through. He must recognise that if the Common Market does not solve the problem for him he faces a situation of dangerous stagnation in our markets. The E.E.C. Commission has reported a stagnant Six. This is very different from the Market propaganda of the great debate. President Nixon's election boom is still a shadow on the television screen.
Our Commonwealth markets are learning the lesson of the Government's neglect of their interests—

Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order. Although the speech of the Leader of the Opposition is very boring, is it in order for an hon. Member opposite to read a newspaper during the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): It is not in order for hon. Members to read newspapers during a debate.

Mr. James Hamilton: On a point of order. As the Member who was reading a newspaper, may I point out that I was checking my right hon. Friend's quotations. I find that yesterday's Sunday Observer is correct in every detail.

Mr. Wilson: Actually, I was quoting the Sunday Times, but what will impress many hon. Members' constituents is the utter frivolity with which right hon. and


hon. Members opposite discuss the unemployment of one million people.
Before the frivolous interruption, and having warned the Prime Minister about the kind of world trade situation with which he is faced—he knows this; he does not find it funny—I said that our Commonwealth markets were learning the lesson of the Government's neglect of their interests in the negotiations. They are placing more of their orders elsewhere. E.F.T.A. is in disarray; it may be in world disarray in the next few months. Therefore, the attack on unemployment which the House is, I hope, seriously debating must proceed against a sombre background of world trade.
Let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman's challenge and tell him what he must do and what our policy would be. There is no point in listening to his repeated alibis and excuses. We want a policy. If he cannot do what is necessary, he had better make room for someone who can. Because each item has been urged on the right hon. Gentleman before, and because I want him to comment on each proposal, I will make my points very briefly.
First, we reject responsibility for the policies undertaken by the Government—the abolition of the I.R.C. and of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and the "lame duck" policy. It must be a condition of solving the unemployment problem that either the Government join us over repudiating those policies or recognise that there can be no solution without a fresh start—and that means a fresh Government.
Secondly, for this reason, we call on the Government to re-establish the I.R.C. as an indication of a determination to forge a new partnership between Government and industry, and, since the Government have now accepted the duty which they denied a year ago, to provide public funds in appropriate industrial situations, to provide a buffer, controlled by public-spirited industrialists, which the I.R.C. was, for the economic investment of funds allocated.
Thirdly, under a strengthened I.R.C., public investment boards for all industries which require strengthening—old but potentially viable industries requiring modernisation and new technological in-

dustries requiring capital—should be set up. The legislation scrapping the Shipbuilding Industry Board should be repealed and a new board under the direction of the new I.R.C. established. This should be done on the basis of an industrial partnership with a recognition that investment cannot be adequately expanded except on the basis of the assertion of public responsibility for an appropriate and expanding industrial programme.
Fourthly, as the Government are still preoccupied with the transfer to private interests of the Carlisle pubs and Cook's Tours and may not be capable of understanding the rôle of nationalised industry in increasing investment—although they are relying more and more on it—they must accept, as I am prepared to accept on behalf of my party, the nationalisation of the investment responsibility, public and private, and the need to take all necessary measures to this end. This must mean non-discrimination between the public sector and the private sector in the provision of public funds for capital investment, with no double standards in Government accounting. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that mean?"] Hon. Members had better listen, and I will tell them in a moment. Hon. Members opposite did not want to hear it two minutes ago; now they are all anxious to know what it means.
Fifthly, through N.E.D.C., a programme for public and private investment to reverse the lagging totals shown in the Government's own estimates should be prepared, and that amount of investment, public or private, should be financed by Government enterprise and Government finance. In drawing up this programme, the Government should further consider the association of the House, by a Select Committee, with the implementation of such a programme.
Sixthly, the Government should now announce a decision to revert to investment grants, with a marked differential in favour of development areas, intermediate areas, and other areas now hit by the slump in investment. At the same time they should make an announcement rescinding their decision to abolish regional employment premium in 1974.
Seventhly, as an essential contribution to the investment programme, the Government should now substantially increase


their assistance, for example, to the machine tool and similar industries, for new technological R. and D. programmes. They should establish a system of advance orders ahead of demand for standardised investment projects such as machine tools, standard container, ore and other ships, a stabilisation scheme, a buffer stock ahead of demand so that investment can be immediately increased today on the basis of those orders, and in a future boom orders can be met quickly without an intervening loss of industrial capacity.
Eighth, since the Government have decided on, if they have not announced, an I.R.C. for Northern Ireland, they should now set up development authorities for comparable areas in Great Britain—the Clyde, the Tyne, the Tees, the Mersey, Cumberland, Wales, the South-West and all other areas, be they scheduled development areas or not, where employment problems cannot be solved except by combined economic and social development.
Ninthly, in every area of heavy unemployment—[Interruption.]—I ask hon. Members to listen; this affects many of our urban areas—the Government should establish now a new local authority employment development scheme, on the lines already put before the Prime Minister, following proposals made by Labour members of the Liverpool Corporation. In the variant I suggest, the Government should calculate the average cost to the State and local authorities of maintaining an individual unemployed man, an individual householder in unemployment, taking into account unemployment and supplementary benefits, and then offer to make available to the local council concerned the equivalent for 10,000 on their unemployment register, or 5,000 or 1,000 depending on the size of the area, the virulence of its unemployment and its problems.
That would be on a guarantee that the authority concerned would provide immediate employment for those unemployed—craftsmen and unskilled men, for example, in the construction and other industries—in modernising schools and providing for additional classrooms; removing slums; improving older houses; building or improving health and welfare centres, or, by contract with the National Health Service, our ancient hospitals; improving roads and public amenities;

and removing slag heaps and improving the environment generally, over and above any Government programmes or pre-existing local authority programmes. For where private spending, private investment, has failed to provide full employment, only by public spending, despite the dogma of Conservative hon. Members, can we now solve this problem of unemployment.
Tenthly, where in the future factory closures are announced or redundancies declared, whether in private or public industry, the Government should require prior notification to the Department concerned, and before action is taken the Department should prescribe a local inquiry, with representatives of the unions and management, under official—or in very special cases Ministerial—chairmanship, together with representatives of the appropriate regional development authority and planning council.
Eleventhly a special employment council—[Interruption.]—We should be glad if we had one of these suggestions carried out by the Government. We should not be debating one million unemployed. A special employment council, under the N.E.D.C. or separate, should be established under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister to receive reports from the new regional authorities, from regional economic planning councils, and reports on ad hoc closure and redundancy inquiries, and this should continue to sit and deal with the problem until the unemployment figure is reduced to tolerable levels.
Twelfthly, I do not need to say, to ensure that national economic policies are directed to full industrial expansion without inflation, the Government should initiate immediate discussions with the T.U.C. and C.B.I. to secure agreement for a national policy for prices, including rents, and for incomes, meaning all incomes. This would mean dropping the inflationary Housing Bill as a start. For this purpose, also, the Government should immediately declare their willingness to accept the T.U.C. proposals for a threshold incomes policy, with provision for automatic adjustment to cost of living increases.
Now, to the relief of Conservative hon. Members, my referee's watch shows that I am near the end. Indeed, I am now in injury time.

Mr. Alex Eadie: It is very important that my right hon. Friend should incorporate in the package he has submitted, to the annoyance of certain hon. Members opposite, that the Prime Minister take the initiative today to see that the coalminers' strike is ended, and that the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers knows that there will he such an initiative.

Mr. Wilson: I think that that was covered in my 12 points and—[Interruption.] It would not have happened if the Government had not scrapped the National Board for Prices and Incomes. But the points were made adequately by my right hon. Friends earlier.
As I have said, I am now in injury time. I do not agree that the Government will not take seriously some of the proposals put forward this afternoon and others that will be put forward from both sides during this very grave debate.
I want Conservative hon. Members to know, especially those who will speak in the debate—[An HON. MEMBER: "When?"]—that a third of them are here only because of their Leader's promise to reduce unemployment. As more and more people in the country now realise, this is a Government conceived in deceit. They were elected on the promises and pledges of the right hon. Gentleman, pledges and promises which, unless he is motivated by an ignorance that none of us really attributes to him, he knew were fraudulent when he made them before the Election. The further action of the right hon. Gentleman, the arrogance he showed on being elected 15 months ago, the arrogance he has always shown in the House, the arrogance he showed first to the unions and then to industry, has been the basis of today's debate. They are a Government who have certainly broken their pledges—most of them, at any rate. They are a Government who have been proud to tear up even the mild prospectus on full employment of Sir Winston Churchill's coalition Government, and have destroyed the consensus by which post-war Governments have governed. But, above all, they are a Government who, by a combination of negligence, arrogance and wrongly directed policies, by an obsession with the balance sheet and not human beings, have produced a level of unemployment on which the whole coun-

try had thought we had turned our backs for ever.
They have a leader with one clear duty now—to be man enough to admit the deception, admit the failure, shoulder the responsibility, and submit his policies, doctrines and, above all, that Government's miserable achievements to the judgment of the nation.

5.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for the kind words he uttered at the beginning of his speech about me personally. Later he said that he did not wish to impute to me that I desired to see unemployment. I should have thought there was one thing the House could agree on, however great may be the difference between us on economic policy, that no one here wanted to see unemployment—[Interruption.]—I should have thought that it was in the traditions of the House that hon. Members did not question other people's motives.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to acknowledge that since I have been Prime Minister, quite apart from my years in politics before, I have seen all the regions of the country, and when I go to them I meet the trade unionists and the employers and know the problems. We can agree that unemployment is, above all, a waste, a human waste as well as an economic waste, a waste of a man's skills and abilities, and hardship for his family—

Mr. Ron Lewis: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I propose to deal with the whole question very fully.
When the right hon. Gentleman puts forward certain principles, with some of them no one could disagree. The desire to work is not limited to trade unions but is felt by the great mass of the people and their families. Nor is the problem only one of work for school-leavers. Many of us have known over the years that those who obtain their first job but are unable to hold it down suffer even more than the school-leavers. It is a problem that the House


understands full well and wants to do its utmost to deal with.
I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the personal sneers and jibes he found it necessary to make. They do not need any reply, for the simple reason that the great majority of hon. Members know that they are not true, and the leaders of the trade union movement and of British business know equally that they are not true.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Name one.

The Prime Minister: I have never hesitated, since I have been Prime Minister or before, to accept my responsibilities, and I shall not hesitate to do so now. I make no alpology for pursuing a policy which the right hon. Gentlemen used once to follow with enthusiasm, of trying to ensure the entry of this country into the Community of Europe, which we achieved last Saturday. For the record, perhaps I had better point out that even in my speech on Saturday I was dealing with the wider implications of the creation of the enlarged European Community, particularly for East-West relations, for the Commonwealth and for the Third World. I hope, therefore, that the right hon Gentleman's jibe that I was concerned only with a tiny, inward-looking Europe will no longer escape his lips.
Nobody doubts the seriousness of the problem of unemployment, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the analysis it requires. I propose first to analyse the unemployment problem that we now have, not in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with it, by stating particular figures for particular areas, but by analysing the type of unemployment with which we are dealing, what the consequences are and how it can best be dealt with.
We have a kind of unemployment that we have not had before, either before 1939 or since 1945—the combination of a high rate of inflation, which is now lowering, with a high level of unemployment. This is unique in British experience. It has three aspects, each of which we should consider—the cyclical aspect, the regional aspect and the structural aspect.

Mr. Skinner: We were taught that when we were 19.

The Prime Minister: The important factor at present is that all three aspects are existing together—[Interruption.]—I was hoping that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) might at least treat the debate seriously and listen to the argument. The plain fact with which this country and the House are faced is that we are securing today the same production—in fact, slightly more—as two years ago, using 400,000 men fewer to do it. That is the fact with which this country is confronted, and although it is an immense hardship and waste for those who are unemployed, it was the same as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, both in 1966 and 1967, when he declared to the House that he, and his colleagues, too, had not anticipated the increase in unemployment which they got.
I want to deal first of all with the cyclical aspect of this situation. We have had before in Britain the experience of unemployment, in the troughs of economic movement; and periods of slow growth, which inevitably led to unused capacity and an increase in unemployment. When the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were in office, as they said quite plainly, the economy grew by less than 15 per cent. in six years, and in the last two years the growth was less than 2 per cent. a year. There is no argument about it and there is no argument why it happened. It happened because of the deflationary measures they then felt it necessary to take. This policy of slow growth has also had its consequences for unemployment, because looking at the graph of unemployment one can see how, in the cyclical picture, every time there has been slow growth over the past 15 years unemployment has risen from a higher level than the year before. This is not a characteristic of one Government or the other, but a characteristic of both Governments over the past 15 years. [Interruption.] It is not in the nature of the capitalist system because that has not happened in other capitalist countries.
To deal with the cyclical aspect, this Government have carried out the largest reflation of demand since the war. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly entitled to say what he thought were the failings of the policies of this Government—though the list he gave was not


particularly impressive, and I am prepared to go through it. What he did not do was to give any credit whatsoever to the reflationary action which has been carried out. In this the right hon. Gentleman differs from his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). This reflation in demand includes cuts in taxation since June, 1970, amounting to £1,400 million in a full year—for example, the halving of S.E.T., £245 million. It was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who put on S.E.T. in order to put people out of work in the distributive industries. Under the reflation we have made cuts of £235 million in purchase tax, and through them and S.E.T. we have acted directly on the price structure of consumer goods. If hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at the idea of a reduction in purchase tax, why are they and the trade unionists constantly urging that upon me?

Mr. Atkinson: The reason why trade unions ask this is that the Government's reflationary measures do not equate with the total amount which the Labour Government took out of the economy plus the equivalent rise in the cost of living since. Is that a position which the Prime Minister understands?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept responsibility for what the hon. Gentleman's own Government took out of the economy. What I am pointing out is that we have reduced purchase tax substantially, and that that has acted directly on the price structure, and that we were asked to do so by the trade union movement, and in this we are in agreement with it.
Then there are a £350 million reduction in income tax, and changes in the children's allowances in the 1971 Budget amounting to £279 million. Are these policies to which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues object? Do they object to what we have done in this sphere? They are major policies of reflation by this Government.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman has asked the House to recognise the importance of these reflationary measures, but we have realised that, notwithstanding them, we have the highest unemployment for 30 years. Do we take it that the right hon.

Gentleman thinks that we have got value for money?

The Prime Minister: I am coming on to deal with this, because the Government have taken action. I come on to another aspect, the increases in public expenditure, amounting to £750 million, which since January, 1971, we have announced to stimulate the economy over the years 1971–72 to 1974–75. They have been designed not to produce overloading later, so that British industry can have confidence in putting in its own private investment to meet the demand which must come. [Interruption.] I am coming on to deal with this. As I have listened for one hour and six minutes to their right hon. Friend, perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen for a few moments to a case which has to be put, when they may be better able to judge.
This capital expenditure includes £164 million on infrastructure for the regions. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for special arrangements for the regions. This has been done—£53 million for house improvement grants, including a very substantial amount to help the construction industry; £80 million for naval ship building, which has gone very largely to development areas which have capacity ready; £23 million for the Nimrod aircraft; £100 million additional expenditure by the nationalised industries which has been urged upon us; since 23rd November another £33 million of capital expenditure; and, in addition, £130 million for the repayment of post-war credits. Do the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite condemn these in their all-embracing condemnation of the policies the Government are pursuing? These are policies which, it is quite clear, still have a long way to work through the economy.

Mr. Peter Shore: This is surely the whole point. The measures which the right hon. Gentleman has taken have been too little and too late. They have been the wrong kinds of measure. Will he now tell the House what increase there has been in the G.D.P. in the 18 months since he came into office?

The Prime Minister: The point about it surely is that the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford, in his judgment of my right hon.


Friend's measures, of July in particular, did not say that they were measures which ought to have been taken sooner; for the very simple reason that so long as wage increases were high, inflation would be high, and industry itself would not have had confidence in the measures which the Government were taking. This is absolutely clear, and it is also important from the international point of view.
Let us look at another aspect in which the Government have taken action—in the field of social security benefits, the benefits for the over-80s, the additional benefits for the chronic sick, the attendance allowance, the family income supplement, and, last September, the biggest ever increase in pensions and social benefits. Is objection to this taken by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in their all-embracing condemnation of these policies which have been pursued by the Government? We have been able to cover a very large field which has never been covered before in helping those who are the less fortunate in society. Is exception taken to these measures?
Finally, we have reduced Bank rate twice—now down to 5 per cent.—and we have removed hire-purchase controls.
These are formidable measures which this Government have taken to reduce inflation and to deal with the cyclical aspect of the economy. If we are to get investment in private industry, it is vitally important to show that what we have done will not lead to the overloading of the economy and to a stop two or three years hence in our economic affairs.
Many people would have said—indeed, did say at the time—that we have taken more reflationary action than was prudent. The right hon. Gentleman the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer said of the Budget measures of March, 1971, that they would prevent the unemployment problem from getting worse. He welcomed the measures of July, 1971, and he did not criticise them as insufficient. Very well, we will certainly take full responsibility for everything we have done.
These measures, although they are taking time to work through, have already produced signs of expansion, and it is right that these should be recognised. The

increase in consumers' expenditure of 3½, per cent. between—

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: rose—

The Prime Minister: I cannot give way too often.

Mr. Whitehead: The Prime Minister so rarely gives way to me. Does not the Prime Minister agree that every single pronouncement made by his friends in industry about the way in which they are preparing for expansion includes the safety clause that they do not intend to take on labour? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about that?

The Prime Minister: I am coming to that point, which is concerned with the third type of unemployment with which we have to deal. The signs of expansion are the increase in consumers' expenditure of 3½ per cent. between the first and second halves of 1971; the marked increase in new car registrations over the third quarter; retail sales in October and November are well up on the third quarter; the increase in output in consumer goods industries; and in the chemical industry in October and November output was 2½ per cent. above the third quarter.
Private housing starts in October and November were 5 per cent. above the third quarter average, and new commitments to advances by building societies were 5½ per cent. higher. Investment rose by about 5 per cent. in manufacturing industry and 3 per cent. in distributive and service industries between the second and third quarters of 1971. The increase in bank lending has been of the nature of £750 million in the quarter to mid-November, compared with a £250 million increase in the previous quarter. Within this total, advances to manufacturing industry have risen by £50 million. The value of exports has increased in 1971 by 5 per cent. in volume.
So, if we were dealing only with the cyclical aspect of unemployment, these measures would already have dealt considerably with A, but there are other factors now operating against it and I wish to deal with those as well.
Having dealt with the cyclical aspect, I want to deal with the regional problems, which, in my experience, are now


also of a new kind. I will give figures of the scale of the problem with which the House has to deal. Between 1960 and 1970 employment in agriculture fell by over 220,000. This was not through any lack of demand. Employment in mining fell by 360,000. Employment on locomotives, carriages and wagons fell by 90,000 and employment on shipbuilding fell by 70,000. As everyone knows, these heavy industries are concentrated mainly in the development areas. The falls are not due just to reduced demand. Developments in technology enable the same or a higher output to be achieved with, in some cases, a smaller though sometimes also a more highly skilled labour force.
All Governments since 1945 have put strenuous efforts into regional policy, but unemployment in the development areas relative to unemployment in the country as a whole has remained almost exactly the same throughout those 25 years. This is a characteristic of regional unemployment in Britain. The Director of the North-East Development Council, which everyone respects as an important body, made an interesting assessment that the North-East had lost 150,000 jobs over 10 years, but, because of the new jobs which had been created, there had been a net gain of 10,000. That is the consequence of 10 years work by Governments of both parties. The change which has now come about is that regional anxieties are not confined to the traditional areas of unemployment in the heavy industries.

Mr. Skinner: That is common knowledge.

The Prime Minister: I shall deal with the problem even although the hon. Gentleman recognises it. There is concern in the Midlands conurbation and in the North-West particularly about the obsolescence of its industrial plant and industrial buildings and about the heritage of dereliction. We must also recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House representing these regions have said both at Question Time and at other times that these regions believe that this is in part the consequence of too rigid an I.D.C. policy, and that is what is now required is greater flexibility. A feature of the present situation in these regions seems to me to be that the rationalisation which has been carried out by

firms has usually been concentrated in new factories, in new plant and often in new areas where all those who work in industry find it more convenient and more pleasant to work.
These problems will not be solved solely by the reflation of the economy. We recognise that when the economy is expanding in the South-East, the West Midlands and the North-West there is a better opportunity of getting some industry into the other regions. We have recognised the problem, as I said, by the expenditure of £164 million on infrastructure, £80 million on shipbuilding orders, increases in building grants and operational grants and the improved tax incentives for capital expenditure on industry.
I believe that large areas of our country require modernisation of plant and buildings, and this is not confined to the accepted areas of the North-East, Scotland and parts of South Wales, which are the areas which have produced much of our rebuilding in the last 25 years. Europe did it with the Marshall Plan directly after the War. That was intended to be the purpose of the American and Canadian loans. We still need to do it, and it has to be done on a massive scale—

Mr. Dan Jones: Specify the area.

The Prime Minister: I want to come now to the third problem of unemployment with which we are faced and that is the structural aspect. Having dealt with the cyclical and regional problems I will now deal with the structural problem, the third factor, which has not been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman and is sometimes thought by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be the most controversial. I do not believe that a solution can be found unless the third factor which has led to the unexpectedly high and rising level of unemployment is recognised, and that is the massive shake-out of labour which has occurred over the past year or so. It is shown by the figure which I gave at the beginning. If we can maintain our production with so many hundreds of thousands fewer employed, then this must have come about through a great shake-up in industry.
In the year to the third quarter of 1971, manufacturing output rose by less


than 1 per cent. In most previous periods of relatively stagnant output the growth in productivity has also been slowed down. This had the effect of cushioning unemployment to a certain extent. In the last year productivity rose by the exceptionally large amount of 5½ per cent., with the result that employment in manufacturing fell by an unprecedented 4½ per cent. In other words, slightly more was produced using only 19 workers for every 20 who had previously been employed.—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen must face the fact which they have so often refused to face in the past that there has been a massive shake-out of employment. Employment in manufacturing fell by an unprecedented 4½ per cent. This is the problem with which we are faced. What is the explanation of it?
Companies, who had already suffered from six years of stagnation, from increased taxation—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the massive sum which was taken out of the economy by his right hon. Friend—rising import prices and price controls, had to face a runaway wage inflation. They could not set aside adequate sums for investment. That, too, is well known, and must be well known to the right hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition.
Between 1964 and 1970, company trading profits as a proportion of total incomes fell by a very large amount indeed, and companies throughout the country, big and small alike, did not have the wherewithal to invest. Therefore—[Interruption.] No, this is one of the facts of life. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) wrote recently in Socialist Commentary:
No policy which does not take account of the need for adequate profit for investment will achieve its objectives.
And he is absolutely right.
Therefore, the rapid increase in wage rates finally forced the retrenchment of British industry. The result was that companies cut their investment programmes, they scrapped inefficient plant, they closed loss-making subsidiaries and they reduced their manpower. But the reason for it is undoubtedly the scale of the wage increases during the last two years.
Let me recall to hon. Gentlemen opposite the forecast of the right hon. Member

for Birmingham, Stechford in his Budget Statement on 15th April, 1969:
The achievement of the objectives we have set ourselves, and the avoidance of further difficulties, must depend upon restraint in the growth of incomes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1003–4.]
The right hon. Gentleman and his Government tried guidelines, they tried the Declaration of Intent, they had a voluntary policy and they had a compulsory policy. I recognise full well that they were challenged, criticised and opposed by hon. Members below the Gangway in their own party—[HON. MEMBERS: "And by you."] Yes, of course; that is why we have not pursued a compulsory policy.
They then abandoned all attempts at voluntary or compulsory policies. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman now saying as innocently as he can that all we have to do is reach an agreement with the T.U.C. about an incomes policy. He knows that he was never able to do it before and there is no indication that he could do it now.
They finally abandoned all attempts at an incomes policy—I do not say under pressure from their hon. Friends below the Gangway but certainly with their approval—in favour of legislation to reform industrial relations. They then jettisoned that and threw the whole lot away, and abdicated completely. Today, they have no policies for prices or incomes except, in every case in which there has been a wage claim since they have been in opposition, no matter how outrageous and unjustified, they have always supported it to the utmost.
Every Government since 1945—right hon. Gentlemen opposite can take the credit for the lead given here by Sir Stafford Cripps—have sought this increase in productivity and the reduction in overmanning. The right hon. Gentleman himself emphasised this in 1966. The difference is that this change has been brought about at a heavy price in terms of human suffering and hardship and in wastage of skill, wastage of human beings.
Even though we now get this great increase in productivity, we are not getting the benefits, because it is being wasted in useless unemployment. What, then, is the answer here? If we are to bring these unemployed back into useful


production without losing the gain in productivity, we shall need to sustain a considerably higher output, which will have to be used to meet demand overseas as well as at home; we shall need much more investment to produce it and a larger stock of capital equipment.
These are the hard facts of the case. As a result of the shake-out and reduction in manpower, we still have capacity which can be used and taken up through reflation. The companies will not embark upon the investment programmes we need to renovate British industry, to bring back the unemployed into production and to exploit the challenge of Europe unless the threat of further massive wage claims, inflation—

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

The Prime Minister: Just let me finish this paragraph, if I may—unless these threats are removed from them and, in particular—I have found this, as many must have done, from talking to both sides of British industry—unless the threat of another stop is removed from them with the reflation, they are not prepared to bring about investment in private companies.

Mr. Atkinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that an analysis of today's unemployment—we accept that a proportion of it comes from structural changes—shows that it is a contradiction for him to claim that these changes are for structural reasons and then to accuse the trade unions of taking higher wages? There cannot be the one without the other. This is a case which the Prime Minister cannot argue. If there are structural changes, with increased productivity, then of necessity there must be higher wages. The other point is that the great majority of this unemployment comes in those very low areas of industry throughout the country, particularly areas like textiles. The right hon. Gentleman cannot back every horse in the race.

The Prime Minister: I have no objection to higher wages with increased productivity—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the miners?"] I said that productivity has been increased by 5½ per cent.; surely the wage claims which have been made over the last 18 months, leaving

aside those under the last Government, are far higher than that increase in productivity.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

The Prime Minister: I must continue. I have given way many times, and I now wish to deal with the question—

Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman given way on this important point? There is a national strike on.

The Prime Minister: Very well.

Mr. Eadie: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that it is very common for Ministers of his Administration to contradict each other? Is he aware that he has now contradicted his right hon. Friend's statement, when I put a question to him about his Government interfering with the National Coal Board over the miners' request for a settlement? The Prime Minister has now confessed that his Government are interfering in the miners getting more cash.

The Prime Minister: I have not even touched on the question. What we have said all the time that we have been in government is that the level of wage awards has been far too high to prevent inflation and that it should be brought down, both in the public and in the private sectors.
I wish now to deal with what has happened. A year ago, many wage settlements were as high as 14 or 15 per cent. Why the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition objected to a dock settlement in July of 7 per cent. I do not understand. That seems to be another of his criticisms of the Government. Many of the settlements are today around 7 or 8 per cent.—half as high as a year ago. This applies both to the private sector and to the public sector.
Six months ago, prices were rising at an annual rate of 11 per cent. Over the last six months, the rate of price inflation has been brought down to 5¾ per cent. That is half as fast as it was a year ago. I should have thought that this was progress which could have been welcomed by both sides of the House. It is due in part to the C.B.I. initiative,


and it is due in part to the direct action taken by the Government, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures which acted directly on prices.
So there are signs that the policy of wage and price de-escalation is succeeding, and succeeding far more than many people in industry or overseas observers would have believed possible a year ago.

Mr. Harold Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about price in-increases, has he seen the Financial Times monthly index this morning? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he is now quoting—namely, the fall in the last six months—has happened in practically every period from June to January since figures were collected? Under the Labour Government they actually fell from June to the following January in three of the last five years. In the other two there was an increase, but it was less than the increase that took place under this Government from June, 1971, to January, 1972, making no allowance for the Housing Bill or increases in rates and rents this April.

The Prime Minister: This is a comparison with last year, over the same period, and represents an increase of about half of what it was before. [Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, do not welcome it. For the country as a whole it is good news.
We have succeeded in bringing this about without using the machinery of statutory controls which the Labour Government used—[Interruption.]—statutory controls which stored up so much trouble for the future, as hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway rightly said at the time. However, we have been violently and constantly opposed by the Labour Party. This has been brilliantly shown by the fact that at the same time as hon. Gentlemen opposite have been complaining that prices should be more stable, they have been urging increases in wages, including even greater wages than the National Coal Board has been offering the miners. [Interruption.] It is worth noting that the right hon. Member for Grimsby said:
We"—
the Labour Opposition—
still lack even a glimmer of an anti-inflationary policy.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: On a point of order. Is it in order for two Ministers of the Crown to he sleeping while the Prime Minister is speaking?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

The Prime Minister: I wish now to look to the future. There is no reason why domestic demand should not increase by 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. a year for a good number of years ahead, provided that price competitiveness in international markets is maintained. The Leader of the Opposition claims credit for a balance of payments surplus of £600 million. Very well, and we will stand on our own feet and claim credit for a surplus on our balance of payments of £1,000 million—[Interruption.]
We are, therefore, in a position to maintain growth and ahead lies opportunity—[Interruption.]—to increase growth, and we are getting growth at the moment. Ahead there are opportunities. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this or want it—[Interruption.]—because they want to bring about disaster if they can, but they will not succeed.
Ahead lie opportunities of a European market of 250 million people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not wish to look at it in these terms, but if they want to see capital investment in British industry, they must show British industry where the markets will be. We shall have over half our trade with the members of the enlarged Community and its associates.
I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition that E.F.T.A. is in a state of chaos and that the Commonwealth has turned away from us because of our entry into the E.E.C. In fact, the Commonwealth countries are now welcoming the arrangements they are getting with the enlarged Community, which they recognise as the largest trading bloc the world has seen. Every Commonwealth country recognises this and knows that with our support inside the Community, it will get the benefits—[Interruption.]—of course they do; and that is what will govern policies inside the Commonwealth.
I wish to address some remarks to British industry, to management and to the trade union side. It is essential that


they should feel that they have the reassurance they need for capital investment about a large market and about the rate of growth which is oven to them, because demand is there with reflation. They can be reassured about the manpower they require.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be announcing next week a massive development in training, and this is essential if this manpower is to become adaptable, mobile and suitable to the requirements of the new developing industries. British industry also wants to be assured that there will not be another period of stop. There have been constraints on the balance of payments and these have been recognised all the time since the war. We are determined not to allow them to stand in the way of growth. This is another reason for the continuing battle against inflation which we are determined to maintain.
In this connection, we should recognise that under its Treaty the Community is obliged to take action to help each of its members if problems of this kind arise. This is the further assurance which British industry needs to go ahead with capital investment and expansion.
If one looks at the arrangements made in the Group of Ten in Washington one sees that there are new wider margins in which currencies can operate, and this, too, is an assurance to British industry to go ahead with confidence with its investment plans.
Nevertheless, there is still an obligation on the Government, who, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took such a major part in getting agreement in the Group of Ten, to keep up the pressure for the establishment of a new permanent system in the sphere of international currency arrangements. I believe, therefore, that there is good ground for a revival of confidence in British industry which should lead to the improvement we want in investment.
It might assist if I were to give the figures. In Japan the ratio of investment to gross national product is 35 per cent. In the Six it is 23 per cent. In the United Kingdom it is about 18 per cent. It is essential that investment should be increased in this country to at least the level of that of our European partners whom we are going to join.
I ask British industry and management to look at the time-phasing for this investment. It is not a moment too soon to carry out that investment now. Industry is aware that profits are recoving as a result of retrenchment and reviving demand. Industry is seeing that growth is already increasing. It must know that the spare capacity it has will be taken up in a comparatively short time, probably without very much greater use of manpower, but by the time that existing capacity is used, it must have new capacity ready to bring into action. If this is to be the case, then now is the time for investment to be made and for plant to be ordered and built, otherwise British industry will find the demand there, but it will not have the plant and capacity to meet it.
This is the immediate problem. It is the problem to which the Government, management and the unions must address themselves, and we are in no way doctrinaire in our approach to this issue. [Interruption.] It astonishes me that hon. Gentlemen opposite should adopt this attitude. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the case of Rolls-Royce. Those who have read the White Paper will see exactly what burdens would have fallen on Rolls-Royce—the obligations they had undertaken and which would have continued. We said that, in that situation, we were prepared to take over, and we stepped in because of the nature of the interest to the nation. Am I to be accused of being a doctrinaire Prime Minister for taking action of that kind?
I wish to refer also to the trade unions in connection with some points made by the Leader of the Opposition. We have had many meetings with the Trades Union Congress, which knows full well that it can meet my colleagues or myself at any time, and in the past year or so the T.U.C. has put a number of proposals forward.
I particularly draw attention to the fact that the T.U.C. asked, just before the last Budget, when presenting its economic review, for increases in pensions and related benefits, increases in family allowances and a raising of the present income tax threshold. The T.U.C. got the increases in pensions and related benefits, which began in September. It got the bigger child tax allowance, which was also to help in the family allowances


for which it asked, much of which would have gone in taxation. It got the removal from taxation of about 200,000 families, with 550,000 children, by raising the threshold. They were the proposals which the T.U.C. put before us and which we accepted.
Then again, when the T.U.C. came to see me and others on 1st December, it asked that local authorities should be encouraged to accelerate their slum clearance programme, and said that it would help with 130 of them if we worked it out with the T.U.C. That we have done.
The T.U.C. asked for the examination of training with the Department. That has taken place, and my right hon. Friend will make an announcement next week. It asked that the six-day rule should not be introduced, and the Government have announced the postponement of that. It asked for the immediate repayment of post-war credits, and my right hon. Friend announced shortly afterwards the redemption of post-war credits.
I must point out that in the policies put to the Government by the T.U.C. there has been a considerable measure of agreement over the past 18 months.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: rose—

The Prime Minister: I would ask the T.U.C. that it should at least give consideration to dealing with the wage problems concerned with inflation in exactly the same way as we have given full consideration and co-operation to many of the policies it put before us, including the action which, with the help and agreement of the C.B.I., we have taken on prices.
I have indicated the particular problems which now face us over unemployment, and the different kinds of action which the Government are taking to deal with it, the confidence which British industry can have in providing the additional capacity which is essential in order to employ the skills of the manpower in this country, and the additional training facilities which will be announced in order to meet the future requirements of industry. I believe that if we can seize the opportunities now presented to us we have a chance to bring about not only a reduction of unemployment—which we all deeply deplore—

Mr. Skinner: Tell us when?

The Prime Minister: —but also a soundly based prosperity which will be continuing.
I regret the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in many of the things he said today. I regret above all, as the House knows, his dissociation from the opportunities now available to this country, provided that we seize them in time, in the Community which is now open to us. But what the right hon. Gentleman said today is in line with everything he has been saying since he has been sitting on the Opposition side of the House, except for his opening words in the debate on the Gracious Speech when Parliament first met, when he said that this would be a responsible Opposition. In the last 18 months what we have seen has been a continuous retreat by the right hon. Gentleman from responsibility; a retreat from responsibility in industrial relations, and over Europe; a retreat from responsibility on inflation, and now a retreat from responsibility over employment.—[Interruption.] If ever the proof of that were needed, it was the pantomime organised by himself and his Chief Whip at Question Time last Thursday. This House can condemn the right hon. Gentleman's retreat from responsibility by rejecting the Motion tonight.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, for the usual channels to add time to the debate? I have no doubt that you have noticed that it is now twenty-five minutes to seven o'clock. It is a unique experience on a Motion of Censure by the Opposition that the back-bench participants will have so short a time, between now and nine o'clock, to answer some of the very important points made by the Prime Minister and the challenge that he has laid down for the trade unions. Could the debate be extended?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for me. Of course I regret as much as anyone else the shortness of time.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I shall be extremely brief. Whether the House agree with them or not, I shall try to put forward one or two constructive ideas.
This is a debate on an intensely depressing subject. Frankly I have found the debate so far equally depressing and therefore, in that sense, rising to the occasion. The Prime Minister said that we had given scant attention to the list of reflationary measures introduced by the Government. He asked which particular measure would be opposed by any right hon. or hon. Gentleman on this side of the House. The point is not that some of those measures were not right. Collectively the package has not worked. That is the issue. The Prime Minister agreed that it would take a fair time for the measures to work through and he conceded, quite rightly, that they alone would not cure unemployment.
Although one would be interested to ascertain the plans regarding retraining, in which we are sadly deficient in this country as compared with Sweden, for instance, I do not see very much indication that the Government's policies will be more successful in future than they have been in the past.
I also found the speech of the Leader of the Opposition depressing. Although it is true that unemployment has accelerated since 18th June, 1970, it did not start on that date. There was high and Persistent unemployment under the Labour Government, for reasons which I shall mention and which are endemic in our economy. With one or two exceptions, the right hon. Gentleman put forward the same prescription as that which the Labour Party had prescribed during its period of office.
It would be fair to say that the level of unemployment, the rate of economic growth and the lack of investment must, to put it at its lowest, be causes of bitter disappointment to the Conservative Party. Some of us would go further and say that those three factors collectively are the greatest single failure of the present Government. Not only is it an intense human problem but it is an appalling waste of our national resources. There is no single cause. Indeed, as the Liberal Amendment indicates, no single Government have been responsible for this state of affairs since the war.
I touch on three matters and the first I mention is investment. At the moment investment is sluggish. Investment in the

machine tool industry was down 40 per cent. last year. On 2nd January Keith Richardson, the Industrial Editor of The Sunday Times pointed out:
In the past five years British engineers have bought less than 200,000 new machine tools, compared with the 450,000 that Germany has equipped herself with or 760,000 bought by the Japanese.
Our investment has increased by only 35 per cent. since 1964, and our total output since 1964 has been less than 2½ per cent. per annum, one of the lowest rates in the industrial world. Indeed, if our rate of growth had been as fast as that of our European neighbours we would be 20 per cent. richer and have nearly £9,000 million a year to spend.
There are two aspects about investment. First, there is the investment inducement in the development areas. Second, there is the climate for investment generally. Taking the first, I have represented a development area, and before that a development district, during the 13 years I have been a Member of this House, and the rate of unemployment in part of my constituency is now 12·9 per cent.
There is no doubt that the report of the National Economic Development Office, which was revised in February, 1971, in taking into account the Government's decision to abolish investment grants and supplant them with allowances, coupled with one or two other measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made the differential between going to a development and an non-development area one of the lowest in Europe.
The report took as examples Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom and it stated:
The disparity between incentives in development and non-development areas, which has recently attracted a lot of Press comment because it has dwindled sharply since the Chancellor's Budget last year, is much smaller in the United Kingdom than in any of the other countries.
It goes on to say:
Furthermore, Mr. Barber in his measures last July reduced the differential even further by increasing the first year depreciation allowance on capital plant in non-development areas from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent.
The first point is that the incentive to invest in the development areas, expressed in terms of the differential between going


to development and non-development areas, has been blunted by the Government, so that among the European countries mentioned we have the lowest differential. I therefore believe that we have to go back to investment grants, and that if we are going to attract investment we have to go further and consider the idea of a regionally varied payroll tax.
Taking the problem of investment generally, it is no good the Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and telling British industry that it must invest. It will not invest unless it has confidence in the economic climate, and that is what it does not have. That is why the C.B.I., which is not regarded as an automatic backer of the Labour Party and may be regarded as reasonably subjective in its support of the Conservative Party, said in one of its quarterly bulletins last year that business confidence was at a lower ebb than at any time since June, 1961.
I believe that one reason why industry has not the confidence to invest—the Government have to face this, and the Prime Minister touched on it—is that ever since the war, growth, investment, employment and capital projects have all taken a lower priority than defending the parity of the pound. This has been a sort of symbol of national virility. It has been a totem pole: protect the pound at all costs. That is why the Labour Party did not devalue in 1965. That is why we have had restrictionist Budgets and freeze and squeeze following periods of expansion.
I hope that now we may now start the limited experiment in a floating exchange rate, that we shall continue it and not listen to the Treasury and the Bank of England which want to go back to fixed parities. Nothing would have a greater restriction on investment and do more to undermine long-term confidence than to do what they want, and I hope that we shall see a European reserve currency as one of the by-products of our accession to the Community.
What is the likely pattern of employment going to be? Mr. William Allen, the United States management consultant who was largely responsible for the Esso Fawley refinery negotiations, and the radical wage payment plan at Linwood Pressed Steel works, wrote a chal-

lenging article in the Sunday Times of 1st March, 1964, which was referred to again about a week or two ago in the Sunday Times Business Supplement. Mr. Allen is entitled to speak because he found, to give one example, that at Fawley the refinery was employing twice as many men as any comparable plant in the United States. After the refinery's £23 million capital expansion programme, having taken much of the advice put forward by Mr. Allen, the refinery was actually employing fewer people than before.
Mr. Allen took the view, and I can only paraphrase his argument, that, first, basic wages and salaries in this country are too low. Second, that virtually every employee is under-employed. Third, that our working week is too long. Fourth, that if we had a proper wage structure we would find that most of our overtime was economically and industrially unnecessary. Fifth, that we have not had real full employment in this country since 1946, save in a social as opposed to an economic sense. Sixth, that we have relative spare capacity in our manpower. Seventh, that we were making insufficient use of our capital equipment, but the existing capital equipment was underemployed because of the lack of managerial skills in the employment of our capital machinery.
That is why it is not surprising that in the 12 months preceding October, 1971, it was found that 454,400 jobs had vanished but we kept roughly at the same level of productivity. I think that that will continue to happen and there will probably be more people shaken out, if that is the euphemism that we have to use to describe increasing unemployment.
Mr. Secretan, the managing director of "Manpower", said that only one firm in seven would require more people in 1972 and the Sunday Times Business Supplement comes to substantially the same conclusion. Again, the findings of our American colleague indicated that whereas it required one person to produce a ton of steel in the United States, three were required in the United Kingdom, that it took three to six times as long to build a house in this country as in the United States and that ships could be constructed with 40 per cent. fewer men if we had proper systems.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman has paid a great tribute to American shipbuilders. Can he tell me of one nation which has bought a ship from America in the last 10 years? America cannot compete with the shipbuilding world. She cannot sell ships to anybody, though she might give them away.

Mr. Thorpe: It is a thriving industry and it provides employment for many people there. I cannot say whether anyone has purchased a ship from America. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that there have been no purchases of American ships, I should say that that has very much been the pattern in this country and that the only people who have any cause for satisfaction are the Japanese.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: A subsidy averaging 20,000 dollars for every merchant seaman afloat is paid to the American shipbuilding industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) has said, the industry is wholly uncompetitive. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) underestimates the growth of exports of the British shipbuilding industry. He will have to do better than that.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I was saying. I said that Mr. Allen's finding was that 40 per cent. less manpower could be used, if we take American manpower as the comparable study, in British yards.

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I do not want to get into a long debate on shipbuilding, even with the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), much as I might enjoy it. In this country we have for a long time been overmanned.
That brings me to my next point, which is that—

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. The fact remains—

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement—

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Lady often shouts when she cannot get what she wants.
If we have had overmanning in industry, management has been partly to blame and restrictive practices have been partly to blame. Bearing in mind the figures for the shake-out, we have to recognise that this process is going to continue.
I believe that we shall reach an unemployment figure of 1½ million-plus, and the Government have to recognise that fact and start doing something about it now. The first thing they must do is to create the right climate for investment. The second thing they must do, which they have not so far done, is to undertake far more accurate forecasting of which industries are likely to contract and in which industries there is scope for expansion.
Eight years ago a unit was set up by the then Department of Employment and Productivity to do just that. None of the unit's reports has been made public and it will be interesting to know whether it has been giving close attention to these matters and has been assisting the Government. If the Secretary of State for Employment could refer later in the debate to this unit I am sure that we would all be very grateful.
Time and again the Government tell us that firms in which they have a substantial equity stake are to go bankrupt or are to stand off thousands of workers at a few days' notice. There is no adequate forecasting of likely contraction or expansion in industry, and without that forecasting we shall not get the full benefit of the expanding rate of retraining. Retraining in this country is still quite inadequate. The Swedish Government spend nearly 10 times as much per worker and Swedish companies twice as much per worker as we do here. We are told that we have only 80,000 people in Government training at any one time. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that there is no point in having retraining courses without adequate surveys to show in what skills these people should be trained and what jobs will be available to them when they have been trained.
We must have very much greater public expenditure on roads, electrification, sewage schemes and ports and on the task of removing the scars of the Industrial Revolution, not as a long-term solution


but to give people the dignity of employment. This was the whole basis of the Lloyd George "Yellow Book" which was adopted in toto by Franklin Roosevelt in his New Deal in the 'thirties as a result of which there came about the Tennessee Valley Scheme.
We may have to consider lowering the retirement age for men to 60, 61 or 62. The Government, ever since they have been in office, have told us that they have only just begun to take the bugs out of the body politic which the Labour Government left. They say that things will be all right in about three months. But they know as does everyone else, that they have had to reverse their policies—as the Secretary of State has been honest enough to admit quite frankly. They have tried reflation and have told us that it will take a very long time to have its effect, but still the unemployment figures go up and up.
I believe that they will not have success until they create the right climate for investment, which means that we must stop worshipping at the totem pole of sterling. They will not cure unemployment until they have adequate forecasting and proper retraining and until we have public works started to give employment to the unemployed to improve the infrastructure. The Government must do all these things and show a rather greater sense of urgency and intensity than I felt was shown by the Prime Minister this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It may well have been sufficient to satisfy the party opposite but it was not sufficient to satisfy me, nor do I believe that it is enough to satisfy the country.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. John Page: As there is only a short time left for back benchers I will not comment in detail on the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), but I thought that in large bits of that speech there was good analysis which merits looking at thoroughly. I want to address my remarks to hon. Members opposite, so few of whom have bothered to stay to listen to this debate which they have been so angrily demanding. There are present at the moment fewer than 10 Labour back benchers for a debate on an unemployment figure of 1 million.
We on this side find neither pleasure nor happiness in there being 1 million unemployed. I have never heard a single Conservative Minister, back bencher or business colleague rejoicing in such a high figure. To suggest the opposite is a myth which hon. Members opposite continue to try to perpetuate. It is just not true. All of us on this side believe that unemployment is morally unacceptable and economically wasteful. If self-interest is the only thing that hon. Members opposite will attribute to my hon. Friends and myself, I must add that it is against our political self-interest to have a high figure of unemployment.
That being so, there can be no doubt in the minds of people that Conservative back benchers must press the Government to do all in their power to take proper measures to reduce this figure. That does not mean adopting stupid measures which might for a few months bolster an uneconomic situation but leave in the end a position worse than we had to begin with. We must consider why it is that we now have this high figure and why it has come so suddenly.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his brilliant and frank analysis of the situation pointed out the Government's inheritance 18 months ago. The Government were faced with an inflationary torrent greater than had ever been known before. Members of the business community were faced with trade union wage demands of 20 per cent., 30 per cent. and even 40 per cent. They were pressurised into agreeing to wage settlements higher than they knew were economically acceptable in their respective industries. Employers found themselves with a revolt from their customers on their hands, because even if two years ago or 18 months ago they were able to get a higher price than their customers wished to pay, they knew that this was the last time. They were therefore faced with the position of being unable once more substantially to increase prices and with a continuing squeeze on company profits.
Profits are without honour in the minds of hon. Members opposite, but I was happy to hear the Leader of the Opposition, in the only bit of his "cheeky chappy" speech which I thought had any significance, say that the mainspring of economic prosperity was industrial


investment. It is not always realised that three or four times as much cash for capital investment for industry comes from ploughed-back profits than from new investment.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned that between 1960 and 1970 gross trading profits fell, and I agree that they fell overall by almost one-third, greatly reducing the amount of money available for new investment. That was the picture overall, but certain service industries and the distributive trades were performing better than average. Where I believe new capital investment was most needed was in the old industries and the metal manufacturing industries. Net profits in the metal manufacturing industries dwindled from £201 million in 1960 to only £70 million in 1969. To have kept up the amount of investment needed, instead of £70 million the profit figures should have been around £300 million.

Mr. James Hamilton: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the profits which were made during that period in the metal industry, will he also tell the House that in the corresponding period there was a decrease of 60 per cent. in the labour force in that industry?

Mr. Page: I should like to check the figures. I do not believe they are as high as that.
I think hon. Members would be putting on blinkers if they were to say, against the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, that new investment and new equipment which might be labour-saving causes unemployment. I take the opposite view. The retention of obsolescent machinery is the greatest recipe for unemployment because it leads to uncompetitive, inefficient final goods, and those final goods will not be sold, with the result that employees will lose their jobs.
To get back to the cause of my argument, I believe that the exceptional unemployment which we are now experiencing stems from the very exceptional wage increases which have been granted over the last two years. Employers had no alternative but to declare savage redundancies in order to try to reduce the total wage bill. The absolute tragedy of the present situation is that had it not been for the activities of the more militant trade union leaders, backed up again and

again by many hon. Members opposite, many of those who are unemployed today would still be working. But so much pressure was applied for wage demands that those trade union leaders costed their members out of their jobs.
Also, those militant trade union leaders soured the previously good relations between employers and their workpeople. Mr. Feather in a speech at the weekend said "A little gentle blackmail on employers does no harm". But this blackmail has caused a breakdown in good relations between employers and employees.

Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Feather. I wonder whether he heard Mr. Feather's comments, in the "Any Questions" programme, about where the blame for the present unemployment situation lies. He was under no illusion as to the contribution of the Labour Party to the present situation.

Mr. Page: Yes. I feel, however, that the General Secretary of the T.U.C. is in a difficult position. He is being pulled so many ways by different people and by the demands of his membership that I feel that his remarks these days are not always consistent in their application.
As to the strike weapon, and the coal strike in particular, it is not as effective nowadays as hon. Members opposite would like to think. When there was a strike and there was one owner who would suffer under the strike, the pressures on that individual employer were much greater than they are on the modern professional manager. I believe that the greater disservice that could befall the coal miners as a whole today would be if in the next few weeks the Coal Board were to grant their demands in full. This would mean that they were jeopardising their jobs for the future and there would be an even more hostile reaction from those wishing to buy coal as a source of power.
It is also ironical that the Redundancy Payments Act is removing one of the restraints which used to be placed on employers in declaring redundancies. Now that it is constitutional and respectable, so many of the inhibitions which employers used to adopt in their approach to declaring redundancies have been removed.
The question now is: what should we now do? First, I urge my right hon. Friend and the Government not to change the course which they have chosen to follow. Nothing would be more unwise than to take panic measures now in order to bolster up inefficient industries, and I beg my right hon. Friend not to take those steps. I would mention five proposals which I think the Government should adopt. The first, which shows how ecumenical I am this afternoon, ties in with one of the points which the Leader of the Opposition made, and the only one which seemed to have any sense at all. I should like my right hon. Friend to find ways of encouraging modern innovative products and processes which are, so to speak, on the drawing board today and which, with Government help, might be commonplace in five or 10 years' time. I think that the purchase, on a Government basis, of new machine tools of a modern type and the encouragement of their manufacture would be a sensible step.
With regard to the development areas, I believe that we should use the £460 million which the Government have made available for construction and other work in those areas to try to encourage the expansion of locally-based smaller companies there. I am afraid that if new roads are to be built in the North-East or other development areas, the contracts may go to mobile teams of workers based in the South-East and elsewhere. I would prefer that the contracts went to indigenous firms.
Thirdly, I wonder whether an examination has taken place of the possibility of modernisation of equipment in schools and hospitals. I believe there is an opening here for new technical items, new scientific and laboratory equipment, which would be money well spent and which would turn on the tap of demand immediately, rather than taking the time which some of these other long-term proposals might take.
Next, I hope that my right hon. Friend will impress on managers of employment exchanges their absolute duty to go out into their areas and try to sell the men on their books to the companies in those areas. I am happy to say that the Harrow Employment Exchange is energetic in this situation, is keeping the Members of Parliament informed and is doing its

best to go out daily trying to find openings for people on its books. I will send my right hon. Friend information about another employment exchange the activities of which have, I believe, been lamentable.
Lastly, I think there should be a total ban on all immigration from all sources for the time being while unemployment is high.

Mr. Eric Ogden: rose—

Mr. Page: No, I cannot give way now. I am just coming to my peroration.
I believe that the policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, coupled with a few of my own ideas—[Laughter.]—would lead to growing confidence in our business community, and confidence is vital. Profits in industry are already beginning to improve, and this will result in an ability within industry to have more investment. If we stick to the policy of not supporting lame ducks, a policy which I fully support, we shall, I believe, have a competitive industry ready to meet the opportunities and demands of the future.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: I am not sure how I could possibly take up any of the points made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) in that extraordinary speech.
Coming events cast their shadow before them. The situation now confronting the nation has been a long time a-coming. I fear that it will be a long time a-going, too. I do not share the Prime Minister's optimistic outlook, the idea that the plans advanced today and the money already injected into the economy can produce a net reducticn in unemployment within any reasonably measurable time. I am inclined to believe that it will get worse before it gets better—probably very much worse.
There are many reasons for our present situation. Great Britain's percentage share of world trade has been on a downward trend since 1913. Not until this country, along with others, had to gear itself to face a war did full employment in the sense we have known it come into being. That was the impetus which released the technical and engineering


forces of our people and our industry. Prior to that, we had unemployment running in some years at 1½, million or 2½ million, and for a few months of one year at 3 million.
In the changed situation of the postwar years, when goods could be sold anywhere in the world, when reconstruction on a vast scale was going ahead, when new houses, new factories and the rest were wanted in this country, we had the base for full employment. But it was a false base. It was a false base for these reasons. The first five years after the war, 1945 to 1950, were typical years of reconstruction and we had little material or technical resources at the command of either the Government or industry. The next dozen years were the vital years.
We may talk now about investment, about retooling and about new designs, about all the paraphernalia which goes with investment; but it was in those vital years after 1951 that all this was neglected. That was the time, under Mr. Macmillan as Prime Minister, when Britain was making and selling everything and anything throughout the world, the time when property building was at its highest and when, in terms of wages and benefits, Britain could stand comparison with other countries. This was the time before the E.E.C. had developed into a strong economic and manufacturing competing Community. It was the time when the United States, although technically in advance of other countries, was not yet geared to the expansion which it is able to achieve if pushed to the limit. It was the time also when our bigggest competitor, Japan, was forging ahead.
In his references to Mr. Allen, the American consultant, and his strictures upon British industry, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party did not compare like with like. With the possible exception of Japan, with a different type of labour force, a different type of managerial force and a different economic outlook, there is no country which carries the penalties which this country has. Our biggest penalty, without doubt, is that we are too heavily populated in relation to natural resources and engineering resources.
I said in this Chamber two years ago that unless, by every conceivable means, we had a huge build-up in British industry and a huge output of goods and services enabling us to have an annual growth rate of 5 per cent. in our gross national product, we should be heading for trouble which we could not control by the end of the century, because we should be over-populated by 20 million in relation to resources. Nothing that I have heard or seen since leads me to suppose that I was wrong. I believe that I am right, and our 1 million unemployed today, a problem which will not be easily solved, is evidence of the way things are going.
In 1966, when I first heard those dreadful words "a shake-out" from our Prime Minister, I shuddered. I know what "shake-out" means. I think that there are not many of my right hon. and hon. Friends now in the House with active memories of what unemployment was. I mean memories of that physical experience. The age barrier is growing now, but some of us have that memory. It is not a happy experience for the men and the families suffering it.
We must not, therefore, as we so often do in these situations, fog things up in economic and political argument until the human content is lost. We are talking about men's jobs and men's futures. Still more serious, we are talking about the dreams of those just leaving school and trying to get started. It is a major problem.
For the first time in this country now, it is not just manual workers who are unemployed. It goes over the whole spectrum, with managerial people, people in insurance, in brokers' offices and so on unemployed. At all levels now, people are being retired early, at 55 or 53, with no prospect of getting another job. This is expertise upon which money has been spent, to which education has been devoted, expertise which would still render a service to the country if the opportunity to work were there.
The lack of investment should have been remedied in those vital 13 years. Investment should have been poured in at that time. Whatever we do now will not be quick enough. The suggestions made today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, with some of which I agree, will take time to work, even if we have a Labour Government.


The Prime Minister's plans and injections into the economy will take time to work. The National Plan, produced by Lord George-Brown when he was at the D.E.A., which never had any real power because it rested with the Treasury, was probably too grandiose, but at least it showed the way this country would have to go if it were to gear itself to meet the challenges and penalties of world competition.
The necessary changes will not come overnight. We shall have the heavy penalty of unemployment with us for some time. We have high prices and high profits, and now we have high unemployment. Whatever forecasting of future trends in British industry is done, whatever study groups, however urgent, are set us, from now on we shall have to work against a background of world trade contraction, for what is happening here is happening in every other country.
The institution of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation was a great thing in its way for bringing about mergers, for sponsoring the formation of new companies and for making industry more efficient—all vital needs for the nation—but every time it acted the end result was that people were thrown out of work, sometimes in large numbers. The result of the A.E.I.-G.E.C.—English Electric merger by Weinstock may have been an increase in job efficiency but it also meant a loss of employment, and such situations have to be faced.
What are we to do? Are we to leave these people out of work? Where can they go? What is their future? Is enough investment forthcoming? If so, why is it not arriving now when the climate is appropriate and there is any amount of good will, despite the difficulties between unions and employers? Incidentally, I do not accept the strictures about Mr. Victor Feather. He is the man with the most difficult job in the world and he does it without any real authority. He has to judge the time to step in, the time when he can push a man a little here and another a little there. Let us not decry what he is trying to do, because without any authority he is able to get people into a situation where they can discuss their differences. I agree that he has his own way of setting about it, but by and large he succeeds.
I am reminded tonight of what the late fain Macleod said from the Opposition Benches in 1967 and 1968 when the unemployment figures were growing. As one of the most outspoken members of the Opposition on this subject, he made his charges against the Labour Government. But anyone reading his speeches will see that he was always ultra-cautious. He knew what pattern was developing. I re-read some of his speeches over the weekend and saw this again. He knew what that pattern was because he knew that the charge on our resources was too great.
When we build advance factories, and we built 240 between 1964 and 1970, even if we build more than that number and they are all in development areas there is no guarantee that they will require male or female employees in important numbers. New factories are designed for streamlined processes and while they may increase profits and those profits may be taxed, if the factories do not provide jobs they do not spell a happy future for the regions.
I listened to the Prime Minister's optimistic proposals and to those of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. A great effort is required to get this situation right and it will take at least 10 years of industrial common agreement and investment before the industry can make the kind of change required, before it can begin to go as it must go.
I cannot offer any advice for a quick solution. A cut of 1 per cent. in Bank Rate, the restoration of investment grants as a matter of urgency, not just in the development areas, and a programme of advance factories, again not only in the development areas, would all help and at least the physical plant on the ground would be ready to be occupied and at least industrialists and investors would have the advantage of investment grants; and if they want to forecast long-term plans, the lower the Bank Rate they enjoy, the better. If that is what they are after, they may have to have it. But certainly something must move and it must move before very long.
After almost 30 years of full employment, people are not so mentally attuned to having to put up with things as they were in the days when they were brought up to depend on luck and whether they


had a job was a matter of luck. Today they are different in thought and in interest and they will demand an answer to these problems in one way or another As a nation we ought tonight to set about providing that answer.
I am not concerned tonight with scoring party points, because this issue is too serious. Along with others in the 1930s, I spent two years on the dole and I know what it is to walk many miles trying to sell vacuum cleaners on the doorstep. I know the human kindess which can be met as one knocks on doors, but I also know of the difficulties—one first had to make sure that the people of the house had electricity installed before one could start to sell the product. However, I have found that people can be enormously kind. But behind door after door I found that people had the same problems, although perhaps not so acute, the problem of someone out of work. This is a waste of resources that we ought not to contemplate.
I am one of those who happen to believe that joining the E.E.C. will be good for this country. I could see our being squeezed between the U.S.A., the E.E.C. and Japan. I appreciate that international business and industry are ruthless in pursuit of their own ends. We have a highly disciplined people and, whichever party is in power, if the people are given the right lead and the right measures and some hope about the way to go, they will not be lacking in response. It is the Government's job to provide that lead and if they cannot provide it, there is only one alternative—they must give way to someone who can.

7.27 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I listened with pleasure to the contribution of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). If all hon. Members put forward ideas as he has argued his case tonight, we should more quickly get on top of our problem of unemployment.
I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, rather like the hon. Member, I entered the House in 1931, following the terrible unemployment at that time and, apart from the short time that I was out of the House, much of my effort has been devoted to ensuring trade, high employment, pro-

sperity and happiness for every region, and for me this is an emotional occasion because of the problems which may be faced in future.
I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so clearly outlined the different issues which make up this great problem. However, I wish that he had made it a little clearer that one of the problems which had added considerable difficulty has been that of automation. I wish that the Prime Minister had talked a little bit about automation. As I go about the country I see and hear of many people who lose their jobs as the result of automation. For example, many lifts in large establishments are no longer operated by men and women but operate automatically. There is a great deal of automation in hotels which reduces staff and results in people having to wait longer for a meal.
The general public would understand more easily the problem of growing unemployment if a little more attention was paid to the results of the shake-out about which the Leader of the Opposition was so keen when he was in power. I wonder whether it is possible for my right hon. Friends to take certain matters up with the nationalised industries. Perhaps British Rail should not dismiss porters as they do. When I arrived at Newcastle Central station yesterday to get my sleeper the ticket collector told me, "British Railways have got rid of the porters." It is a little hard in my part of the world where there is high unemployment that British Railways should do this and allow sleeping car attendants to serve drinks on the sleepers. I would prefer that we had the porters and did not have the drinks.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Is the hon. Lady aware of how much a porter takes home for a week's work? It is £12·50p. For that it is hardly worth working.

Dame Irene Ward: It is not the porters who wish to leave their jobs, it is British Rail who are getting rid of them. I agree that there are many people who ought to be on higher wages. We ought to employ as many people as we can in the nationalised industries and I would like to see those industries given more money to use to increase wages or provide more employment.
I have complete confidence in the Prime Minister's statement and the confidence he enjoys in my part of the world is emphasised by the fact that the Secretaries of State in this Government are the best, most efficient, most humane Ministers I have met, and I have met a lot in 35 years in this House.

Mr. Haffer: Nobody will believe you.

Dame Irene Ward: In my part of the world they returned me to Parliament, and that is good enough for me. I could not care less what hon. Gentlemen opposite think. I want to put on record what a lot of people in my part of the world think about our present Ministers. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Employment who is always ready to receive me, not necessarily to agree with me, because I know that other Ministers do not agree with me. It is pleasant to have a Secretary of State who pays attention to what one does. I am delighted that we are to have a statement next week about increased training and, I hope, about the whole industrial training programme. The whole country is lucky to have the Secretary of State for Employment.
I want to say a word about the Secretary of State for the Environment who arrived in the North of England on Friday and asked to meet representatives from all local authorities in Northumberland and Durham. As a Member of Parliament I could not be invited to the meeting but the grapevine works quickly and I know that my right hon. Friend met with great success. He asked representatives to put ideas to him and this was very acceptable to us. We very much admire the way my right hon. Friend finds time to deal with so many detailed matters.
I would also like to add my appreciative thanks to the Minister for Local Government and Development.

Mr. William Ross: A lot of thanks.

Dame Irene Ward: It is a good thing to have people who do their jobs well. I do not propose to use the short time I have to argue with hon. Gentlemen opposite. If I said what I thought about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition it could not be printed in HANSARD.
The Minister for Local Government is always helpful, always willing to listen and to help those who have problems. Naturally a lot of problems arise with the Local Government Bill. In the enormous Ministry of the Secretary of State for the Environment many issues crop up, and my right hon. Friend is a very good administrator because he is always able to talk to one and to take action. He made one or two useful observations when speaking in the North of England which I want to put on the record. This is one of the reasons why I was anxious to catch your eye today, Mr. Speaker.
It is amazing what an immense amount of good is being done by the bringing forward of projects submitted by local authorities. As the Prime Minister said, it takes time for things to work through. The Prime Minister told us of all that he had given the trade unions when they requested it and I thought to myself, "My goodness, now I look forward to getting some of the things that my party and I want when the next Finance Bill comes along."
I always reckon that it takes 10 years to win a battle, but the trade unions seem to have had such an effect on the Prime Minister that they have managed to get a lot of things done and, fortunately, because we have a Conservative Government, the money is available to pay for them. I hope there will be room in the next Finance Bill for a few of the things that I want to be done for the people in the North who are living on small fixed incomes and others like them.
I have never known a Minister to come to the North and say, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said to the assembled representatives, "Tell me your problems, and I shall try to help". I agree with one point he made. He said, rightly, "We do not want a Minister for the North of England". The Secretaries of State for the Environment and Employment and the Prime Minister can argue these matters in the Cabinet.
I am a great believer in power. I know that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor was responsible for the North he set in train all the work which led to the building of the new roads in the North, for which


we are grateful, but it is much more important that there should be Ministers in the Cabinet who can ask for action to be taken than that we should have to go through a chain of Ministers to get things done. It is easy for Ministers to turn down proposals in Cabinet and then ordinary people like myself never hear about them. I have complete confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to argue the case on our behalf. I have similar confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I could not wish for two better Ministers in the Cabinet.
Two points have been causing great anxiety in the North for some time. The North-East Development Council has argued that when industries in an area wished to expand they should have the incentives which go to new industry. The Secretary of State for the Environment has pointed out, quite rightly, that industrialists have special difficulties in establishing industries in new areas. I accept that. I am still waiting for a decision from the Government on what action they will take concerning certain proposals. We have waited rather a long time. If it is not possible to give the same incentives to existing industries, could not a scheme on a graduated scale be introduced? Any expansion in trade and industry, particularly in our area, which is not a consumer goods area, would be helpful to us.
There has been great anxiety among industrialists and traders that the regional employment premium is to be phased out in 1974. This was the one proposal in the Conservative Party's Manifesto for the last General Election on which I had reservations. I told my constituents that I might not be able to support the Government's proposal if the employment situation did not improve—and, when asking our constituents to vote for us, we must tell them if we are not inclined to support our own Government.
I was therefore interested in the Secretary of State's answer when this point was put to him. I telephoned his Department this morning to check that the Press had reported the matter correctly, because nothing is worse for a Minister than having something reported which he had not said. I am assured that the following

quotation is correct and I can therefore put it on the record:
The Secretary of State gave a pledge that when the regional employment premium—an allowance for each worker employed by a manufacturing company—comes to an end in 1974 the development areas will not lose out. 'We will replace it with some form of investment for regions such as this',
said my right hon. Friend. We therefore have a substantial pledge, and I am very grateful for it because industry is worried about this matter.
I turn to the question of training. Recently I met one of the instructors in an industrial training centre who had just finished a course with a large number of young men between the ages of 20 and 30 whom he had been instructing in new radio techniques and electronics. I was very pleased to learn that within a week of their finishing the course they had all obtained jobs. This happened just before Christmas, so the information is fairly up to date. This instructor was extremely enthusiastic. We have some new people in our regional set-up who are very keen about training.
I am therefore delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is to make a major announcement next week on this matter. For quite a long time we have been encouraging, as the Labour Government encouraged, people to go in for training, but quite a lot of unsuitable people have undergone training and others have not obtained jobs on completing their courses. The matter would be dealt with much more efficiently if, as I think the Leader of the Opposition suggested, a complete analysis were made of what was required.
It is confusing for people like myself to be told that a lot of construction workers are unemployed and yet there are big housing schemes in my area for which it is difficult to obtain skilled men. I try to read all the relevant papers and to listen to the experts, but I do not know whether there is a shortage, and I have a feeling that the Department of Employment probably does not know. It is important that there should be close contact with the employers in the area so that men who have undergone training are able to obtain jobs.

Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): Has my hon. Friend


noticed the recent very disturbing statement made by the Northern Counties Director of the Employers' Federation who, in emphasising that there was a shortage of skilled people in the North-East in the building trade, said that not one of 34 registered unemployed people in Sunderland was prepared to travel five miles to a job? This is a terrifying situation.

Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I know of his interest in what goes on in our area. I have read the statement to which my hon. Friend referred. It is said that there are all sorts of openings for skilled people. However, Governments have so many national and world problems to deal with that the detail of life is sometimes overlooked. It is very important that back-bench Members should be aware of the smaller details because things cannot be done unless the detail as well as the planning is right.
I should like to say a word or two about the Leader of the Liberal Party. I always thought that he was a friend of mine, but he was jolly nasty today. I have lived longer than he has and I remember an occasion during the war when I had a very long journey to a place to which we were ferrying equipment for the Russians. I was told how quickly America was building Liberty ships, but they did not add on the hours spent in producing the prefabricated parts. I have no wish to denigrate the Americans, but simply by putting together a lot of prefabricated parts it appeared as though they were building ships more quickly than we were, which was not true. I therefore wondered whether the Leader of the Liberal Party—and I cannot remember his constituency because Liberal Members rush in to the Chamber to make a speech and then rush out and it is difficult to make out which constituencies they represent—was right in his analysis, because Great Britain builds the best ships in the world and will continue to do so.
We in the North of England have great confidence in the Government's ability to solve the unemployment problem in the long run. No Government with which I have had anything to do have had such capable, pleasant, humane and easy-to-

talk-to people in the Ministries as the present Government.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: There are many points in the speech of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) to which I should like to reply, but out of deference to my hon. Friends I will comment on only one. If she had been half as concerned when Palmer's shipyard was closed down by the Government as she was about the railway porters, it might be open now. She never attended a single meeting when we were pillorying the Government for the first lame duck they killed off.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: rose—

Mr. Fernyhough: I will not be interrupted.

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman is not worth interrupting.

Mr. Fernyhough: I will not be interrupted by the hon. Gentleman on the question of Palmer's, because even he did not come to any of the meetings.

Mr. Elliott: I did.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman did not. I called all the meetings, so I know who attended them.
On the question of someone saying that 34 people turned down a job at Sunderland, I can only say that at one time in the Labour Government's history unemployment was down to 250,000. That shows that men and women will work if there is work available. So no one will tell me the old fable that there is work if only men would seek it.

Mr. Elliott: rose—

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not giving way, because I have made a pledge that I shall be brief, and I will try to keep it.

Mr. Burden: Unemployment was never down to 250,000.

Mr. Fernyhough: What I have said is true.
If a million people in this country were being attacked tonight by some pestilence or disease, or even if the Communists were attacking a million people, the whole of the nation's resources would be brought to bear to help them and try to rescue them. Money would not count.


Nothing would count. A million of our people are being attacked—by unemployment. They are being physically and mentally attacked, and every week and month that it goes on makes them worse.
We could do something about it. The House has had to listen to the Prime Minister trotting out what the Government have done. He has had to admit that they have had to use the public instrument to increase investment to provide jobs, because private investment is falling down and not providing the jobs. The Government should step up public investment still further. If we cannot get private enterprise to go to the development areas to build the factories and provide the jobs, why should not the Government do so? They are the biggest single customer of British industry, buying everything from matches and cigarettes to tanks, aeroplanes, guns and ships—you mention it, the Government buy it.
We could twist the arms of the suppliers and determine where they go. If they said, "We're not going", I hope that we should set up publicly-owned and publicly-run factories. In the end that is the only answer to the problems of the development areas. We have tried the carrot time and time again, but always the development areas are the first to be hurt.
Let us take the experience of my constituency. Since the General Election, Palmer's has gone, as have Paton and Baldwins, British Oxygen—

Mr. Elliott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the actual figures for Palmer's? How many of the men employed in Palmer's ship-repairing yard, which had no future, were re-employed almost at once? The right hon. Gentleman must know the figures.

Mr. Fernyhough: I cannot give them from memory. [Interruption.] All I can say is that the unemployment figure for males in Jarrow is higher now by 1,000, probably because of Palmer's. [Interruption.] I gave a promise that I should keep to a timetable. I shall not keep to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, unless you are prepared to keep in order Conservative hon. Members who interrupt.

Mr. Urwin: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow

(Mr. Fernyhough) is trying, under considerable difficulty, to make important points. He is being constantly interrupted by Conservative hon. Members. Because of your discussion with your colleague, which is probably of vital importance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have not listened to his appeal to be helped in making a short speech. May we have an orderly debate, not interrupted by hon. Members who have not been here throughout the debate?

Mr. Elliott: On a point of order. I have been here all day. I asked a specific question because the right hon. Gentleman kept mentioning Palmer's, a question to which he obviously does not know the answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I apologise to the House, and to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) in particular. I was having a discussion about the importance of the debate. The participation of back benchers has been sadly curtailed because of other speeches. The difficulty is to fit in every hon. Member that I should like to fit in. That is what I was engaged in discussing just now. Now that my attention has been drawn to what was happening, I hope, knowing the right hon. Gentleman as I do, that we shall proceed with the utmost harmony.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not easily provoked, but I have a tendency to reply when I am provoked. I did not want to do that tonight, because I did not want to take time that might be used equally well by other hon. Members.
Several North-East Members have constituents employed in Reyrolle-Parsons. The cut-back in public expenditure on which the Government won the Election resulted in the Central Electricity Generating Board having to postpone certain of its works. Why does the Government not now give the order for Sizewell, which would provide work for thousands of people who desperately need it? Nobody can tell me that if we had Sizewell we should have too much electricity. Lenin said that the power, strength and health of any community could be measured by the number of units of electricity it consumed per head. That is not a bad test. In view of the unemployment in the heavy electrical engineering industry and the likely


redundancies, could not the Government now, without waiting for the Vinter Committee, make a firm decision and allow the project to go forward?
I like to feel that I am a man of my word. There are many other things I should like to say, but in view of the time I will make only one other point. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), I have known something of unemployment, and so have my family. I know what it does to people, even to youngsters. If anyone believes that the present young generation will quietly accept unemployment in the manner of their fathers, he is living in a very unreal world. They will not be satisfied with the right to vote if they are denied the right to work, because the right to vote without the right to work makes a mockery of democracy.
I see developing a situation which, in a comparatively short time, could be probably the most serious the country has ever faced. Either we give hope to the boys and girls now leaving school, some of them with high educational qualifications, who cannot get a job, hope to those who have never known unemployment and are therefore not prepared to put up with it, or, in the last analysis, the situation can lead to the end of our democracy, the end of this House and of the values which many of us cherish.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I am most grateful for the opportunity to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), if only to say that I fully share his anxiety and feelings about unemployment. I do not think that anyone in the country can believe that all those feelings are confined to the Opposition side of the House. They are not.
No Government could possibly have done more than the present Government to stimulate the economy. I want to show very clearly that the measures are working. The best possible barometer of economic activity is the management consultancy executive selection industry, from which I come. In July, 1966, the date of the beginning of the credit squeeze, which began the present rundown, as at the beginning of any other credit squeeze the executive selection in-

dustry experienced a dramatic cut-off in business—not a decline, but a sudden cut-off. Many of the companies in that business have gone out of existence. Mine has continued only by obtaining an ever-increasing share of an ever-decreasing market.
But November was a record in the history of the company for incoming business. If the previous record could be regarded as 100, November's was 150 and December, which for seasonal reasons is normally a very slack month in the industry, beat the November record. Over the weekend I checked the figures with my head office in Manchester to see whether the trend was continuing, and I am told that it is as strong as ever. It is not confined to my own company. Any hon. Member with doubts about that should get in touch with one of the companies in the industry.
I also checked over the weekend with a large advertising agency in Manchester, with which I have no professional connection, which deals to a large extent with classified advertising of vacancies at all levels. Whereas I was talking about management, it is dealing across the board with advertising vacancies of various sorts. It says that the upturn in business in the past three months has been fantastic. It has never known such an increase. That is a barometer of forthcoming economic activity. [Interruption.] I should not say that here if I did not have every confidence that it is a repetition of what has been seen before at the beginning of an upswing. It means that after a long, dark winter, dawn is beginning to break. [An HON. MEMBER: "Spring."] Hon. Members may laugh, but if they check with any firm of management consultants concerned with selection they will find that is true.
But I wish that what I have said about the national situation could be applied to my constituency. Bearing in mind what I have just said, when I returned home on Friday I saw Thursday's evening paper showing that Eagley Mill, owned by J. and P. Coates and employing over 600 people, is to close by June. In addition, on the same day I learned that, Littlewood's Mail Order factory was to declare redundancies of more than 300. That was virtually 1,000 redundancies in Bolton in one day, making


a total notified number of redundancies of 1,390 in January, of whom 1,000 are not yet in the unemployment figures. In the whole of last year there were 3,000 fewer jobs in Bolton. Yet we have had over one-third of that number in just this one black month of January.
Two years ago Bolton had full employment in spite of having lost 15,000 jobs over 12 years due to the rundown in the textile industry, but with a holding of the fort through the energetic application of all sorts of work programmes by the industrial development officer of Bolton Corporation. We should give every credit to Bolton Corporation for the manner in which it kept jobs coming into the town against the ebbing tide of the textile industry.
All this which has happened has nothing to do with the economic situation. The Eagley Mill is to close because of the progress made with man-made fibres. Littlewood's Mail Order factory is affected because of changes in the industry brought about partly by the postal strike last year and partly by the increase in postal charges. Bolton Corporation has gone on fighting the rundown in textiles by bringing in the mail order business, and now the mail order business is on the way out.
Bolton Corporation has made a great effort, and it would spend more of the ratepayers' money to bring industry to the town, but it is hamstrung by a thing called S.E.L.N.E.C. Transport Executive, created by the last Government under the Transport Act, 1968, which has caused a 5p rate and at the same time is using money which was provided by its customers in Lancashire to buy buses abroad instead of creating employment in Lancashire. [Interruption.] No one controls that executive. It was the executive which took the decision to purchase those buses. The local authority had nothing to do with it, and it is outrageous for anybody in this House to ask who controls the executive. It controls itself once it is appointed by the nominating authority.
What I am suggesting is that the time has come when the Government should look again at the Hunt Report which, so far as Bolton is concerned, was scrapped by the last Government. It said that Bolton should have intermediate area

status. I am urging the Government now to give us that intermediate area status. I support the Government in that it is hopeless to chop and change regional policies, but ours really is a special case.
I learned at a meeting at the town hall at the weekend of a firm which two years ago would have liked to have come to Bolton; it wanted to take advantage of the Bolton Institute of Technology, and it wanted the kind of people who are available in Bolton. Because of the regional policies created by the last Government and, unfortunately, continued by the present Government, the intermediate area status of Blackburn took the firm there. If that firm had come to Bolton there would now be 2,000 more jobs in the town. That is not the fault of this Government—it happened before they came into office—but we must not have any more of that.
The North-West has 5 per cent. unemployed at the moment. Two years ago we had full employment in Bolton. Now we have 6·5 per cent. unemployment due to the causes and redundancies which I have mentioned, and some of these have not yet appeared in the unemployment figures, as I have said. I must put in a very strong plea for help to Bolton through intermediate area status. The Opposition's Motion is not relevant to this issue. We have people who are the finest in the world; we have 100 acres of sites available for industry; we have 3 million sq. ft. of factory space. Nevertheless we shall not get the people to come in unless they have some incentive. I sincerely hope that this plea will not go unheard.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: In listening to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) we listened to one among others on the benches opposite who represent constituencies which for a long period have to a great extent had full employment. The hon. Member will now realise that those of us who represent constituencies and counties where we have always had very heavy unemployment have had good cause for our complaints, not only lately but during the period of our own Government. We have never been slow to make the necessary protests or efforts to bring industry to our parts of the country.
I realise that back benchers opposite are not responsible for the present situation. It is a matter for the Cabinet and I want to know from the Government, and my hon. Friends desire to know, what the Government are going to do about the 1¼ million unemployed in the United Kingdom. In Scotland, north, south, east and west, we hear virtually every week without fail of redundancies in some factory or another. In my own constituency, during four months four factories have notified redundancies and one of them will close never to open again.
It is not good enough for us in this House to make speeches about unemployment and at the same time attempt to make political capital out of unemployment. We all have a responsibility to the people who sent us here to put forward constructive ideas about how best to solve the unemployment problem. In Lanarkshire we have 9·8 per cent. of the insurable population signing on at the employment exchanges; in Scotland as a whole the proportion is 7·1 per cent. of the insurable population. That is virtually twice the national average. I have only to say that for it to be obvious that we have a point of view to express and one of which cognisance must be taken.
I was reading over the weekend Samuel Johnson's life by Boswell and the passage about "The great inspiration for the Scots is the road to England". That no longer applies because we now find, under the administration of the present Government, that in places such as Birmingham where many Scottish people used to travel to find work there is now unemployment, and in Birmingham 5·6 per cent. of the insurable population are unemployed. In consequence of a situation such as that, we find that Members of Parliament for places like Birminghave and Bolton, which have enjoyed full employment, are now finding themselves in a situation in which they must ask the Government to change their policies. We on this side have been asking the Government to change their policies since they came into office in 1970.
Most of us on this side have put forward very constructive ideas, and one which we have consistently put forward has been that it was a mistake to depart from investment grants. In consequence of departing from investment grants there is a lack of desire on the part of indus-

trialists to go to development areas. There has been recognition of this at least by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I say that bearing in mind what he said to some of my colleagues and to me at St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh during the Summer Recess. He then said that there should be a change of policy in that direction. I sincerely hope that his voice is strong and clear at Cabinet level to get the Government to change their existing policy.
I want now to refer to existing companies in development areas. Unless the Government of the day are prepared to give some recognition to possible expansions by companies already in the development areas, industrialists will not be prepared to expand. I was urging this even in the days of my own Government. This point of view is worthy of consideration and could at least go some way towards solving our problems.
We seem to forget about the social consequences of unemployment. We all know of men of 50 years of age and over who have worked all their working lives and have never been unemployed and who are now redundant and will never work again. This is an indictment against any Government, irrespective of its colour, and it is a waste of manpower. Many of these men have become disillusioned and have come to accept that unemployment is a way of life. That is a tragedy and one of the worst social consequences of our time.
In the past year the textile industry has suffered a decrease of 50 per cent. in employment, the metal industry a decrease of 100 per cent. and the motor industry a decrease of 60 per cent. With all the technological developments which are taking place, with the new machinery which is being brought in and the contraction in all these industries, the Government must do some thinking and planning to ensure that the increased production resulting from these machines will provide jobs for the men who are being displaced.
The Government have a responsibility to declare their policy on industrial training, and I hope that a declaration will be made tonight by the Secretary of State for Employment. In his last statement about industrial training the right hon. Gentleman made no reference to industrial training in Scotland. It was said


that the slack must be taken up. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the slack has been taken up, as can be seen by the number who are unemployed. In Sweden 10 per cent. more is spent by the Government per head of the population than is spent in this country on industrial training, and the contribution of the employers is twice that of our employers.
We in Scotland want the Secretary of State for Scotland, not next week but as quickly as he can, tonight if possible, to give some heart to the people of Scotland. There has been an increase of 13,300 in the unemployment figures over the last month and there is a possibility of 160,000 being unemployed in February. The people of Scotland are entitled to be told where the Government stand on the Hunterston iron ore terminal project. Lord Melchett has told us that an iron ore terminal at Hunterston is an absolute necessity for the steel industry. I hope on that basis we shall be given a ray of hope that the iron ore terminus will come and will be followed by the steel complex. I hope that the Government will also suggest to the electricity board that it should now go ahead with the power stations which are so urgently required and which could give work to many of my colleagues in the steel construction industry.
It has been said by an hon. Gentleman on the Government side of the House that unemployed people are sometimes not prepared to move five miles. I assure him that many of my constituents are travelling 50 miles to do a job which is beneficial to the country as a whole.
I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will tell us what are the Government's intentions about returning to investment grants and the expansion of existing industry and, most important, make a declaration on the Hunterston project.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Censure Motion which we are debating this evening is crudely drafted and inappropriate to the difficulties and complexities of this heart-rending issue. The second part of the Motion reads:
…censures Her Majesty's Government for the fact that their doctrinaire and irrespon-

sible policies have forced the total of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom to 1,023,583 persons.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, the most controversial item in the Government's legislation in the industrial field was undoubtedly the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce. That was undertaken for thoroughly undoctrinaire reasons of national interest and to maximise employment. No one can suggest that the taking over by private industry of the brewers of Carlisle or the taking over by private enterprise of Thomas Cook will have a crucial effect on employment.
The Leader of the Opposition seemed to dwell in a world of fantasy and chimera which is known only to himself, a world peopled by speculators and profiteers, a world in which the length of the dole queue varied directly with the level of the industrial share index. He also set a level of verbosity and long-windedness which unfortunately characterised many contributions to the debate and, in saying that he would not invoke history to reinforce his arguments, he produced two fallacious historical parallels.
The first was in reference to the Prime Minister's speech in Bradford on 16th June. 1970, at which I was present and in which the Prime Minister referred to an economy of high unemployment, not surprisingly in Bradford, because the Yorkshire and Humberside total of unemployment rose by three times during the period of Labour Administration. In the city of Bradford itself, the level of redundancy in wool textiles doubled, and in engineering it went up by six times in those years. The number of closures in wool textiles from 1964 to 1970 increased by three times, as it did in engineering. So it was hardly inappropriate for the Prime Minister to talk about an economy of high unemployment.
I recall also in that context a speech by the Leader of the Opposition, as he now is, in 1966, when he pledged in Bradford. in that very same hall, a rate of house building exceeding 500,000 a year—one of the most notorious of his broken promises to the country.
The right hon. Gentleman then went on to discuss unemployment in Scotland, particularly in Tayside. He referred to the fact that, in 1969, unemployment in Dundee was 2·9 per cent., and it is now


over 10 per cent. In his mad haste to overlook history and not to dig up historical parallels, is he so over-anxious that he forgets that the most cataclysmic decline of the jute supply industry has taken place in that period? There has been a cyclone followed by a period of crisis in East Pakistan, followed by war, which is by no means insignificant—

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Wilkinson: No, I will not give way.
In discussing this problem, we must also bear in mind that, in the period of the previous Administration, expenditure on the development and intermediate areas rose by almost five times. At the same time, unemployment on average in the development areas rose from 2·7 per cent. to 4·3 per cent. So, although more and more public money was being spent, there was by no means a commensurate return in terms of employment.
The Leader of the Opposition produced one interesting suggestion. That was his suggestion to enrol the unemployed in specific local environmental projects to improve schools, housing and roads and so on. This is all very well. It has slight overtones of the workhouse, but I think that in the public mind it might have superficial attractions. I do not rule it out of court. But one should remember that a wool sorter or highly trained weaver who is out of work is not likely to be the best person to be employed as a craftsman in construction.
I hope that the House will forgive me for being a little parochial, a little too obsessed with my own parish pump, my own patch, but I should like to refer to the Yorkshire area and the wool textile district of the West Riding. It is relevant because it highlights that area which my right hon. Friend investigated, the area of regional unemployment.
I will not quarrel with him—I supported him wholeheartedly—in his analysis of the cyclical and structural nature of unemployment. But much more needs to be done on the regional analysis. To give them their due, the last Administration did at least try. They made analyses, they did a little study

work and there was a Green Paper, giving the economic assessment to 1972, published in 1969 under the aegis of the now defunct D.E.A. It clearly forecast that the rate of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside would rise more sharply than in any other area. Yet they did nothing about it, for the whole of the region.
In the same year, 1969, the Hunt Report on the intermediate areas was produced, which recommended that Yorkshire and Humberside, as well as certain areas in the North-West, should receive intermediate status. For Yorkshire and Humberside, this meant that a little bit around Humberside and in the South Yorkshire coalfield got intermediate status, and not the West Riding wool textile district.
In that district, we face problems which are evident elsewhere regionally. We face a pattern in which unemployment is growing. About 7·5 per cent. of the male work force is out of work. This figure exceeds, for example, the figure in Wales, which is a development area, and other parts—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Where is this?

Mr. Wilkinson: This is Yorkshire, Humberside, and I am speaking specifically about Bradford.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member was saying how bad it was in the old Labour Government days. Is he saying that things are worse now? After all, this Government came in to cut employment at a stroke: he now tells me that things are worse.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am telling the hon. Member that we are now facing the legacy of those policies—it is as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he must accept that it has led to an unemployment rate of 7·5 per cent.
If one looks at other factors in the local situation one finds that earnings are lower than in any other industrial area in the country. Indeed, they are even lower than in the development or intermediate areas. At the same time there is net emigration; people are leaving the locality to find work elsewhere. There is widespread dereliction and a pattern of industry which is increasingly capital intensive, so


that the demand for labour is bound to decline.
These circumstances come together to demand imaginative regional policies. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is initiating a review, but there is great urgency over this matter and the time has come for areas like Bolton and Bradford—which because of their geographical position in propinquity to development and intermediate areas, are at a disadvantage—to receive special treatment but especially for Bradford, to be made a special intermediate area.
Since we have been in Government we have already instituted special development areas. I do not believe it ridiculous to say that those areas which suffer the special disadvantages to which I have referred should be granted special intermediate area status.
I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in saying that to be effective, regional policy demands much more effective forecasting by central Government. In the past Governments have been too slow to realise the changing structure of industry.
I referred to wool textiles in Bradford. In 1969 we had the Atkins Report, a strategic plan for the long-term future of the industry. It forecast a massive reduction in the workforce while at the same time stating that the output of the industry would stay very much the same, if not improve. The plan was agreed between and supported by both sides, yet it foreshadowed a tremendous fallout in labour, and that must predicate new industry for the area.
The regional planning councils and the like seem to have been unable to help. They have merely suggested more science-based or service industries. Science-based industries depend on a skilled workforce and it is difficult to train people who are experienced in, say, textiles, to the high degree of technology that workers in science-based industries, electronics and so on require. With the greater accuracy of forecasting must come better training and a more detailed analytical function on the part of the regional economic planning councils.
To go from the general to the particular, the Government have a clear

function to provide jobs, and the Conservative Party needs no instructions on that score. It was Harold Macmillan who when representing Stockton produced "The Middle Way" and the whole idea of Government intervention in industrial location and similar matters.
I urge the Government to go for the specific rather than for a general national, fiscal or monetary approach. In short, the time has come when further increases in spending power and further relaxations in taxation and bank rate would probably lead to higher imports and pressures of demand which we would be unable to sustain. I would therefore go for a regional strategy.
I therefore ask the Minister to consider siting post-war credit repayment centres—which he has already said should, where possible, be sited in development or intermediate areas—in places like Bradford and Bolton, but particularly in Bradford because in our local employment exchange area the P.A.Y.E. centre at Shipley has been abandoned. That is something specific that the Government could do.
The Government could also do something specific for the aerospace industries. They have ordered more Nimrods. Buccaneers and Bulldogs for the Royal Air Force. A replacement is required for the Varsity. This has its fall-out right across industry nationally. Also, another airliner, a Q/STOL airliner, would help.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to examine very thoroughly regional policy, to bring forward their review and to consider special intermediate status for Bradford so that we would enjoy the benefits of investment incentives for housing renewal. Already Bradford has the third best record in the country for special improvement areas, after Haringey and Birmingham. If we had a 75 per cent. grant instead of a 50 per cent. grant, more could be done in this direction, which would greatly improve employment prospects.
The great hope for the future lies in the E.E.C., particularly for manufacturing centres such as the one I have the honour to represent. This fact was recognised by both sides of industry, by managements and unions, in the City of Bradford, and by the fact that three out of its four Members of Parliament for


Bradford voted for Britain's accession to the E.E.C.—two of them were Socialists—because they knew full well that the best hope for jobs in the future lay in expanding markets, which only the E.E.C. could provide.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I do not intend to take up as much time as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). I want to make only a few points.
The Prime Minister made an extremely interesting analysis of the development of unemployment, and he quite rightly pointed out that there were three facets to our present unemployment difficulties. He concentrated on the question of technological change, the shake-out which had developed in industry within the last few years. I think that he was endeavouring to suggest that because this shake-out had occurred it meant that the Government had no responsibility for the rise in unemployment that has taken place over the last 18 months.
But the right hon. Gentleman should remember, as I pointed out in an interjection, that technological change and shake-outs have been taking place in industry, in our type of society, ever since that society was developed. There has always been technological change, because the motive force in our type of society is profit. Therefore, if profit is the motive force, there must inevitably be constant technological change in order to cut down on the variable capital and get an increase in the constant capital, Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know that; they have never learnt the A.B.C. of economics.
In trying to put forward that argument as an excuse for their own lack of responsibility, the Government are getting away from the fact that if one knows that this will happen—and if one does not know this, it is a fantastic situation—one obviously takes steps to create further employment once the shake-out has taken place. How does one do that? One does it on the basis of the development of new industries, by new public investment, and by the creation of industries in all sorts of areas in which there is a decline in the traditional industries and in which there will be a shake-out in new industries because of technological development.
The private enterprise system has totally failed to deal with unemployment. It cannot possibly solve the problem of unemployment on a long-term basis. The problem can be solved only by a planned economic system, by the introduction of new, publicly-owned industries according to a socialised plan of the economy.

Mr. John Hall: rose—

Mr. Heffer: I do not want to be rude, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I propose to make only a brief contribution to the debate as other hon. Members wish to take part in it.
I want to deal with the reality of the situation in areas like my own. In the City of Liverpool 49,000 workers are seeking employment. In the Merseyside development area 54,000 workers are unemployed. If anybody suggests to me that those workers do not want employment, my answer is to ask why, despite the hard core of unemployment in Liverpool, we got the figure down to about 12,000 in 1966 when the Labour Government were in power?
Of course these workers want employment. Of course the workers of Kirby, where the unemployment figure is 20 per cent., want employment. That is why the workers at the Fisher-Bendix factory at Kirby have decided to sit in. They are not prepared to accept unemployment and to go on to the streets seeking work which they know is not there. When I spoke to the workers at Fisher-Bendix, one man said to me, "I am now 54. If I lose my job in this area, I shall not have a cat-in-hell's chance of ever getting a job again. I shall be finished at the age of 54".
It is the Government who have allowed the present unemployment situation to develop. They cannot dodge their responsibilities. They are basically responsible for it. I do not say that the Labour Government had no responsibility at all in the matter. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) knows that I expressed that view when my Government were in office. I have not heard any of the older Conservative Members say in this debate the sort of critical things about their Government's policy that we used to say about ours, because we have


always been concerned about unemployment. It is not an academic question for us.
One of my hon. Friends said that he had walked the streets for two years. Since the Second World War I have walked the streets of Liverpool seeking employment. It is not an academic question for us. I know what unemployment means, and because of that I used to criticise my Government for allowing the unemployment figure to rise to 500,000 and beyond. I have never believed in unemployment. Every Government should do everything they can to bring down unemployment so that those who are out of work are only those who are unemployable in the correct sense of the word.
It is a crime to have one man unemployed. To have 1,020,000 unemployed is a greater crime than ever. The Government stand indicted for their policy on employment, and the quicker they resign and get out the better. Let us have a General Election. Let us get rid of this Government now. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend pledge from the Front Bench today that the Labour Party would never go back to so-called levels of unemployment. There are no such levels. There is no level that is tolerable to a worker seeking employment to ensure that his family does not suffer poverty as a result of unemployment.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and his hon. Friends are not the only people who have seen the tragedy of unemployment. I have a rather long memory of it because it was suffered by my own father in the 'thirties. The party opposite has every right to criticise the Government for the figures that now exist, but for Heaven's sake let us be spared some of the hypocrisy displayed by the opposite benches today and, in particular, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. To hear them, one would imagine—and here I exonerate the hon. Member for Walton, because I heard him criticise his own Government on several occasions—that the record of the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970 was spotless. The fact is that between 1965, the first

year in which the Labour Administration's policies can be said to have taken effect, and 1970 unemployment rose from 359,700 to 639,900—an increase of about 280,000.
We have heard a great deal from right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the last few days about their sympathies with the coal miners, and the hon. Member for Walton has made it perfectly clear how difficult it is for elderly men in traditional industries who lose their jobs to find any other job. The fact is that in 1964 there were 545 coal pits working in Britain employing 502,000 miners. When the Labour Party left office, the number of working pits had been reduced to 252 and the number of miners employed had been reduced to 283,000, a drop of 218,900. I see some hon. Members opposite nodding their heads; it is just as well that we get the position in perspective.
We have heard a great deal from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) about Clydeside. He has shed crocodile tears for Clydeside. On 2nd August last year in this House the right hon. Gentleman admitted that in June, 1969, he had given instructions to U.C.S. to slim its labour force by several thousand men. That, too, should be remembered.
On 6th May, 1970, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), then Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, stated
Between mid-1964 and mid-1969 … there was a loss of over 208,000 jobs in coal mining"—
it was, in fact, 218,000—
134,000 in agriculture, forestry and fishing; 128,000 on the railways; 123,000 in textiles and clothing; 43,000 in metal manfacture; 21,000 in the ports and inland waterways; 20,000 in shipbuilding and marine engineering. The total drop in those traditional industries during that period amounted to … 678,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 432.]
The right hon. Gentleman then told the House that during that period the Northern Region lost 45 per cent. of its coal mining jobs and 39 per cent. of its jobs on the railways; that Scotland lost 38 per cent. of its jobs in coal mining, and Wales 40 per cent.
That was the party which cared so much about employment. It was the party from whose leader we have today


heard so much humbug. This position was not unexpected by the Labour Government. It was their purpose to create just this position, and that was made abundantly clear by the then Prime Minister in a debate on 22nd November, 1967, on the economic situation.
This is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
We set out in 1964 to break clear from the dilemma of more than a decade by a policy of restructuring industry, of cutting out the waste in prestige aviation projects, and in tackling at the root the problems of such base industries as shipbuilding, coal, steel and electrical engineering …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1338.]
In addition the party opposite brought in S.E.T., and when it was introduced in this House the then Chancellor said that it was intended to shake out employment from the distributive industries and put people into manufacturing—in other words, to create unemployment. But the party opposite did nothing practical to transfer that labour and there was no corresponding increase in employment in the manufacturing industries. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber.

Mr. Thomas Swain: I have not been in the Smoke Room; I have been here.

Mr. Burden: There is not one hon. Member opposite who can say that, having set out to shake out employment in those industries before it created the redundancies, the party opposite when in Government took steps to ensure that there were replacement industries available for these men to go into.
The complete failure of the Labour Government to cope with the increase in unemployment was admitted by the former Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), on 21st November, 1967, when he said:
After three years, trying to make different policy approaches, we are forced to choose between a strategy of deflation and unemployment and a strategy of devaluation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1266.]
Next day the then Prime Minister said:
—it is right to tell the House that the problem which we shall be facing in a year's time is far more likely to be not inflation and unemployment, but expansion to a scale which might lead to labour shortages in many areas".

—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1334.]
The then Chancellor said:
…we are going back now to a policy of full employment …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1442.]
The facts are that between 1967 when devaluation took place and 1970 when the Labour Government were defeated there was no question of more jobs than people, but unemployment continued to increase. In fact, there was a further increase of 40,000 in the number of persons facing unemployment.

Mr. Urwin: rose—

Mr. Burden: I have quoted remarks by hon. Members opposite as they appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT. What about devaluation and its effect? What did the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Leader of the Labour Party say about devaluation in July, 1967, in this House? He said:
If there were devaluation in this country any effort on the part of the organised workers to counteract it by securing higher wages should be ruthlessly resisted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 100.]
It ill becomes some hon. Members to criticise the attempts by the present Government to restrain wage demands when that was the policy followed by their own Government just before devaluation took place. The simple fact is that the Labour Government deliberately created unemployment in the traditional industries of high employment without first assuring themselves of the presence of alternative employment in new growth industries.
What is more, the Labour Government threw our aviation, electronics and dependent ancillary industries back on their heels by cancelling the TSR2. The TSR2 was the most sophisticated aircraft in the world, but they destroyed it, and arranged to purchase the American F111, which was a complete failure. If the TSR2 project had continued, there could have been full employment in British aviation, our electronics industry would have been booming and much of the unemployment now being suffered in ancillary industries would not have come about.
Not only did the Labour Government destroy the TSR2 but by their general economic policies they destroyed confidence and the will to invest in the


large-scale re-equipment and expansion of British industry generally. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must accept a great share of the blame for the continued rise in unemployment since they were removed from office. What is happening now is a repercussion of their policies. It is hypocrisy on their part to pretend that all the unemployed above the 600,000 when they were in office are suffering more individually than those 600,000 suffered when they were the Government. Let them be honest about it. The hon. Member for Walton has very properly accepted that it is just as much an individual tragedy to be one of 600,000 unemployed as it is for those numbered among the 1 million. Hon. Members opposite should dwell on that and not be so hypocritical about the situation today.
The present Government will be judged eventually by what they do to ease the position and to create more employment. It is right that they should. Hon. Members opposite who talk so much about the tragedy of unemployment should recognise that it rose considerably when they were in power, and they must take responsibility for that. If the Leader of the Opposition has all the answers to unemployment now, why did he and his right hon. Friends say, when devaluation came, that that was the last throw of the dice which they could make to deal with the economic situation and bring about full employment? That last throw failed, but even now the party opposite will not acknowledge its failure.
Whatever we may say in the House, this country's long-term prosperity depends entirely upon our ability—workers, managements and Government working together—to produce goods which will sell in competition with the products of other manufacturing countries throughout the world. Whatever Government we have in Great Britain, unless that can be achieved there will be rising unemployment and a lowering of the standard of living of our people. It is no good talking about inflating at home so that there may be a great home market to take up all the slack. We must have a large and expanding export market, and it is to this end that the Government must work.
I suggest to my right hon. Friends that a great opportunity could be taken in many respects through a relaxation of the present industrial development certificate policy to bring about an improvement in our factories throughout the country. I am convinced that if we are to improve employment prospects and increase productivity, the Government should give particular attention to the relaxation of I.D.C. policy in most of the areas where there is considerable unemployment now and provide existing factories everywhere with the opportunity to modernise and expand. In addition, they must improve the infrastructure in those areas where development is most essential. Above all, they must ensure that there is restoration and growth of confidence so that there can be greater investment than we have had hitherto.
Of one thing I am sure. The present Government are as compassionate towards the unemployed as is the Labour Party. The great difference is that we are not such humbugs.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I believe that I am justified in contributing briefly to the debate, for unemployment in my constituency has risen faster in the last two years than at any other period since the war. It is an area which had a high level of unemployment to start with and which felt itself secure from further rises because of that very severity.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) defended what he called the compassionate Government. I should like him to come to my constituency and explain to the thousands of redundant workers there and the thousands of men who for the second time in a working life are experiencing mass unemployment in what way the Government are compassionate or efficient, or have shown even one iota of common sense. If he believes that we do not first need a domestic reflation of the economy but that we shall produce growth simply by an expansion of overseas sales, he is ignoring the lessons of the last 20 years when British capitalism has timidly refused to make any move in overseas markets until featherbedded by an absolutely secured domestic market.
What the British business man always tells every Government when asked to


expand trade is that he must first have sufficient security in a home market. It is one of the contradictions of market capitalism and it is a contradiction which will result in the Government pretending to the electorate for probably the last time that a free market and untrammelled capitalism can fill a rôle in a modern civilised society.
What is being proved, not just in this country but throughout the world, where there are rising unemployment rates in Europe and catastrophically high rates in America, while there is starvation for our products in a world of underemployed and unemployed, is that no Government in what is called the free Western capitalist democracies is capable of conquering the twin difficulties of inflated currencies and the unemployed. Only by the kind of planning mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), with a calculated assessment of what is to happen—and science has given in computers the means to measure what is to happen in future—can a Government deal with problems of this kind. Even since the day of John Maynard Keynes, any Government allowing unemployment rates to rise not even as high as this rate have been guilty if not of a criminal act, certainly of criminal negligence, and that is the charge the people make against the Tory Government.
Of the million unemployed, 56,000 are in Wales. We have a half-promise about the great tomorrow and we are to have an announcement about the expansion of training centres. That expansion is certainly necessary, for there are now 7,000 people able to satisfy the entry requirements for Government training centres and awaiting places, and so 7,000 could be absorbed immediately. But that is only scratching the surface of a million unemployed. Instead of a policy by the Prime Minister, all we have had has been a craven appeal to British businessmen to take his word for it that with a market of 250 million in Europe all their difficulties will be solved and all their problems and bewilderments about future possibilities for investment will be removed.
He knows that that is nonsense. We should not be in this mess if British business men had shown the tenacity and the sense of purpose that he hopes for if

by some magic accident we get into Europe. He knows that unemployment in Europe is going up and that European products will soon be coming here. If British companies do expand, even if there are extra jobs, we have no guarantee once we are in Europe that those jobs will be created in the British Isles. I am in no sense a nationalist and I regret that tonight some of my compatriots indulged in a demonstration from the Gallery of the House and threw notices into the Chamber.
It is a measure of the kind of anger being generated, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) through the Government's crass inability, failure and their neglect of the unemployment problem in the regions. The Prime Minister told the Tory Party conference:
We stand on the threshold of a period of growth and prosperity unparalleled since the War.
Since that time unemployment has broken the million mark. If that is the Prime Minister's idea of prosperity then God knows what is his idea of poverty. But poverty we shall see before this Government leave office.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: This being the first debate we have held on unemployment since the figure touched one million it has a certain special quality. Although the forecast of a rise in unemployment to this figure has been made for the last few months, the reality certainly has not been softened in any way by the expectation of the increase. Undoubtedly—and this emerged from some of the speeches today—we are faced with more than just a change in the quantities involved. There is also a qualitative change.
I have foreshortened what I wanted to say to make room for more back benchers so I will not go over the points made by various hon. Members. It would be impossible for us to consider this purely in economic terms and to leave out of account the human tragedy, the loss of pride and dignity that is involved. People outside this House, not only those now unemployed but those who fear they may join the ranks of the unemployed, will be looking to us in this debate to be constructive in what we say and to try to come forward with


some positive points upon which the Government might act.
Having spent a great deal of my time as a Minister grappling with the problems of which the Prime Minister spoke in his speech, I must say in all candour that they are very difficult problems and that it would be foolish for any of us to suppose that they can be solved at the wave of a wand. Without going over all the figures that have been given, the position can be summarised in this way: the total of unemployed is up, there has been the highest monthly increase, there is a worsening trend, there is job destruction, there is a regional crisis no longer simply confined to Scotland, the North and Wales but particularly, for example, in the West Midlands. There are more unemployed workers per vacancy, unemployment is lasting longer, it is hitting older workers, especially men. School-leavers are affected and there are graduates unemployed.
Skilled men are being hit, too. In engineering for draughtsmen, for example, the ratio of unemployed to vacancies rose from 1·3 per cent. to 11·5 per cent. in a single year from September, 1970, to September, 1971. There is more short time, overtime is down and there is a real possibility that when the figures are published in February and March the position will be shown to be worse even than it is in January. It is more than likely, if we take into account some of the research work done on the sample 1966 Census, that the situation is worse than is revealed by the published figures.
The House will not make sense of this debate unless it recognises that this touches on political problems and attitudes which cannot be settled just by giving the Treasury a new set of rules upon which to operate. The plain truth is that although there was a rise in productivity over the first year following the change of Government, this was cancelled out by the fact that unemployment rose so rapidly. When we recall the figures about the loss of working days through strikes which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave us today, it is worth remembering that we are also losing one million working days per day as a result of unemployment.
The Government say that pay demands have been the cause of the situation. This

is the central argument in the debate. It is very different from what the Government said in their manifesto, which was:
Wages started chasing prices up in a desperate and understandable attempt to improve living standards".
That was the explanation given for wage demands by the Conservative Party when it was in opposition. Today we are told that it is the main cause of unemployment. Yet we know—and this is evident from the figures—that it is the lower-paid workers in the lower-paid areas who are most seriously affected by unemployment, and to suggest that by reducing wages we would improve the prospects of dealing with unemployment is such a manifest nonsense as not to be worth consideration.
The plain truth is—and the T.U.C. has made this clear in its economic review—that the economy is working under capacity because the purchasing power of disposable earned incomes, plus other components of domestic demands, is too low to secure the full use of our productive resources, and the goods and services produced in 1971 were about £3,000 million below the level necessary to secure full employment. The T.U.C. said this in its advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the last major Budget in the spring of last year and it included this point in its economic review.
The charge against the Chancellor is not that he has a desire to increase unemployment to the present scale, because manifestly the Cabinet is very frightened by what it has done, but the right hon. Gentleman said in the spring last year, as reported in the Financial Times:
To attempt by expansionary fiscal measures to bring about a substantial reduction in unemployment in present circumstances would do irreparable harm to our long term prospects".
The plain truth is—and it would be better if the Prime Minister admitted it; perhaps the Secretary of State, who is a little more candid about the magnitude of the problem facing him, will do so—that the Government gravely miscalculated in their policies on assuming office. They delayed reflation. They made tax cuts which were regressive in character and which did not find their way into demand in the market, and even lower-paid workers often thought it better, given the Government's philosophy, to save money against the possibility, which


is now becoming real, that they would find themselves on the labour market.
No one denies that by the mini-Budget in July the Government created a boom in consumer durables. However, the difficulty is—and this is the nub of the problem—that this boom can be met by higher-capacity working without engaging and employing more people. There has been an increase in nationalised industry expansion, but there is no prospect in any published figures from the Department of Trade and Industry or elsewhere of an increase in capital investment or—and I put this to the Secretary of State at Question Time the other day—of a substantial fall in unemployment.
There are some examples of an increase in imports meeting the consumer boom which the Government have created. The Economist said last week:
The reason why Britain's import bill did not get out of hand and why we had a large balance of payments surplus in 1971 was that imports of machinery and other capital goods were reduced".
This is the magnitude of the problem, and, although Ministers and Governments can talk themselves into slumps, it is very doubtful whether they can talk themselves into a boom. In a speech to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce a few days ago the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry tried very hard to do so. I have the Press release of his speech in which it was said that
Britain was moving towards a period of economic growth which exceptionally for the United Kingdom will run for several years and in moving off into the foothills of growth we cannot see the mountains which lie beyond but what does seem certain is, whether Himalayas, Alps or Urals, they are a deep range with which we here are not particularly familiar".
This language from a Secretary of State who, in another capacity, was continually rebuking the Government for exhorting industry, which is the only weapon left in his armoury—and the Prime Minister proved it again today—is in marked contrast with what his successor, Mr. Campbell Adamson, said on "The World at One", quoted in the Financial Times on 13th January:
I do not personally believe unemployment will get back to the sort of level we were used to in the 1960s".
He said that there was need for radical "new policies" to be adopted. The survey in the Sunday Times, which has

no interest in damaging the prospects for this country's recovery, confirmed this.
The Prime Minister—and I am sorry he is not able to be here for the end of the debate—said that he did not want to be charged with personally wishing unemployment. But the Government must be judged by the degree of commitment to full employment, the extent of their engagement with the problem which the right hon. Gentleman described quite interestingly, and by the results they achieve. That is the only test by which the country and the House can judge them.
I welcomed the very long analysis given by the Prime Minister. Some people mocked it as a W.E.A. or Open University lecture, but he certainly analysed the cyclical, regional and structural changes going on. Speaking as a former Minister, I wish that he had recognised that these were the very problems with which we were dealing when we were in power. He spoke today as though he had simply discovered that these changes were taking place and presented them to the House as new information. It is no good the Government saying that this is the reason for the situation. People want to know what action the Government propose to take to reduce the level of unemployment.
He saw no contradiction between the fact that year after year in Opposition he went around the country denouncing public expenditure of all kinds and yet now says, "Of course, we have raised public expenditure to deal with it." If he wonders why the business community does not trust him—and the plain truth is that it does not believe what he or the Secretary of State are now saying—it is because there is a total contradiction between what they now claim they are doing and what they said when they were in Opposition, particularly their attack on public expenditure.
As to the consumer boom, the real problem is whether it will involve the recruitment of further labour. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that historically, unemployment has been a regional problem, but when any measures were taken by the previous Government, of which I was one, to deal with the industries like shipbuilding which were running down so, rapidly that there was a danger of our losing our capacity in shipbuilding, the then Opposition bitterly denounced our


action to preserve jobs. Now the Secretary of State puts more money into Govan Shipbuilders than would have been necessary to allow Upper Clyde Shipbuilders to go forward to recovery.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much money has been put into Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.?

Mr. Benn: All I can tell the House is that the figure in the Three Wise Men's Report—[Interruption.]—None whatever, because the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to get the thing to stand up at all. But the forecast of the Three Wise Men, which the right hon. Gentleman published, indicated a far larger investment in Govan shipbuilders than would have been necessary to allow Upper Clyde Shipbuilders to go forward.
The problem of the regions is certainty of policy. The Government sought to pride themselves on having achieved managerial efficiency and competence in their planning, but we have not yet received from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of regional policy the result of his analysis of it, although he was ready, in the absence of that analysis, to get rid of R.E.P. and investment grants and to destroy the certainty that those in the regions must have.
The Prime Minister's speech ended with pure exhortation. One of the most dangerous aspects of his speech was the extent to which the idea that Europe will solve all our problems has somehow entered into his mind. The plain truth is that when, or if, we enter Europe all the changes—the cyclical, the structural, the regional changes—that he identified as problems of the United Kingdom, far from being slowed down, will be accelerated. That is the problem to which the Government have not turned their mind at all.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if he discovered Europe, like a new Columbus on a trans-Channel journey. British manufacturers have been selling to Europe for many years. The problem is that the changes associated with entry into Europe are not just a reduction of the Community's tariffs against us but

of ours against them. British industry recognises that it is headed for massive changes, which inevitably are bound to affect its attitude towards future investment—the food levies; the higher food prices; the fear of wage claims to compensate; the Community budget; the value-added tax; the uncertainty about regional policy; and the knowledge that firms will be negotiating not with a Secretary of State they know but with a Commission they do not know, following policies that have not yet been revealed. All those matters are causes not for greater certainty but for enormous uncertainty.
The financial and monetary union, if it ever comes about, will have enormous implications for manufacturers and producers in this country, working under a Commission whose rules and regulations which will apply to this country were published rather reluctantly only a few days ago—and the whole thing done without even the basic right to give consent granted to the Danes, Norwegians and the Irish. [Interruption.] I am addressing myself only to the Prime Minister's one trump card, that, because he has signed the treaty in Brussels, the whole of British business has a clear duty to invest and employ labour and deal with the unemployment problem, which his Cabinet has done a great deal to worsen.
One cannot make speeches—the Chancellor of the Exchequer made such a speech in the House—about the end of an era, the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end and so on and still expect businessmen to know exactly where they are with a Government that even in their 18 months in office have done a volte-face on many of the policies upon which they were elected.
The other factor, again characteristic of the Government, is that they have under-estimated the extent to which industrial workers faced with the present situation are determined to defend their own interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the Fisher-Bendix case, which is only one of among many, beginning with G.E.C. in Liverpool in September, 1969, followed by U.C.S., Plessey, the River Don Works, Allis-Chalmers in Mold, Churchill's machine tool factory,


Westlands and so on. The work-in or sit-in is a new phenomenon among people who are not prepared to be treated like pawns in the industrial game and to be thrown on to the scrap-heap without any consultation by management and in circumstances that make them feel that the Government do not care very much what happens. It is not a great Trotskyite move. In all the cases with which I have had any contact, the people involved have behaved with a high degree of responsibility and a great degree of dignity, but they will not accept that in 1972 unemployment is to be a deliberate instrument of policy by the Government. That is the barbarity of the modern industrial system that they are rejecting.
Gradually we are moving, not with the help of this Government, to the idea of a proper social cost analysis in which one takes account of not only the profit and loss one year but the whole social cost involved. The trade union movement has played a notable part in getting that idea going.
The fact is that this debate will have totally failed unless we can get from the Secretary of State for Employment some clearer statement of Government policy than we had from the Prime Minister, with his general lecture and his final sermon, because till people feel that the maintenance of full employment has become reabsorbed as an accepted national objective, then, of course, the forces, the political and human and psychological forces which I have described, will continue to work.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech made a number of proposals. I will not go over them again, except to draw attention to some which clearly would have immediate benefit. One is to advance public sector ordering in such a way as to get more orders into heavy capital goods industry, particularly in respect of power stations—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) mentioned Hunterston—and machine tools. Secondly—there is no question about this—a firm statement that regional employment premium will be retained would do something to retain confidence in the regions, with the introduction, may be for a timed period, or the reintroduction, of cash grants for investment now,

would be worth a great deal more than the right hon. Gentleman's lectures to industry on what it ought to do.
Then there was the proposal for regional employment planning councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) talked about the importance of getting local initiatives and they could well be strengthened. The T.U.C. has come forward with a plan for developing the Clydeside development authority. The use of public enterprise in the regions specifically to create jobs to deal with the structural, regional, cyclical problems which the Prime Minister mentioned would be of great value.
But, above all, it is necessary for the Government to start talking to industry in a way not simply confined to a dinner in Birmingham or a speech in the House of Commons or upon some other public occasion. Yet the fact is—and it is evident from all that has been said on the subject—that the Government have still clung through this period to the idea that they must keep separate from industry and not encourage any joint forecasting or planning with it.
It was interesting, after the recent N.E.D.C. meeting, to read that officials especially stressed that the new five-year survey would involve no forecasting, no planning, no joint exercise for these purposes with industry. The five-year time scale may be better than a three-year scale—I accept that, because three years is a rather short time to influence long-term investment; but if the Prime Minister is serious about analysing the long-term rundown in certain jobs and the need for industry to change, then for him to stay aloof from management in industry and from the trade unions is fatal. Nobody would exclude some of the longer-term ideas now attracting growing interest—a shorter working life, a shorter working week, which industrial change brings about, and which may allow people a better quality of life instead of the long, grinding hours of work which we have hitherto regarded as necessary.
The obstacle to changes of this kind is not shortage of ideas. Everybody, from the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. to the newspapers, as well as Members of this


House, is pushing proposals on the Government. The obstacle is the Government's basic philosophy, that the Government and industry should remain at arm's length—that the trade unions are at best negative and at worst disruptive; that public enterprise is of itself basically undesirable; that if it loses money we should close it down, and that if it makes money we should sell it off; that competition somehow solves all our problems—although manifestly it does not; that public expenditure and subsidies, and the taxation which sustains them, are at best wasteful and undesirable, and to be brought in only as a last report; and, finally, pumping out, in an age of interdependence, the idea that every man should stand on his own feet.
If ever there were a period in history when the individualist philosophy of this Government was totally irrelevant, it is this period. If there is still a very weak confidence in the Government it is because their philosophy of disengagement and abdication from social responsibility has undermined such confidence as industry had in Government, and Europe as an alternative will not solve the problems.
I have said many times before in the House, but I feel it more strongly tonight than at any other time, that the fatal flaw of the Cabinet is its belief that somehow we can get a paper from Lord Rothschild's "Think Tank", or a document containing forecasts of profitability, and that this will see us through our difficulties. Whether one is looking at the treatment of ship workers, the miners or the Rhodesian Africans, or at the way in which the students or the scientists have been treated, there is, illuminating everything the Government do, a contempt for people which, in the end, will bring them down.

9.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): We have had a serious and, for most of the time, a quiet and low-key debate about the country's major problem. Many points have been made of both a general and a constituency nature. I assure all those who have made them that they will be studied, particularly those which have been made about aspects of regional policy which, as hon. Members will realise, are the

responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
One thing needs to be said once more, particularly in view of some of the later passages of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and that is that tackling unemployment is our first problem and our first care. It is no help either in solving the problem or in creating the conditions necessary for its solution to try to provoke trouble by suggesting the reverse. We have made this clear from the beginning, we said in the Queen's Speech that it was so and it is so. Unemployment is deplorable to all of us, of whatever party. It is deplorable in personal terms, in overall social terms and in economic terms. What the country would like to see Parliament do is to take constructive counsel about the problems and how to deal with them.
If the House will allow me I want to try—and it is admittedly difficult and even unusual in concluding a debate of this nature—to make a quiet, reasoned speech summing up the nature of the problems and the strategy for dealing with them, particularly those aspects of the strategy which are my concern in the field of employment policy.
There is, and there has been for some time, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, a widespread feeling that we are dealing with a new kind of unemployment, a new sort of problem. One thing about which surely we all agree is that unemployment has not moved as either party expected it to move over the last couple of years. That was openly admitted from the Box by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in the debate before Christmas. Only last March he said to the country that he thought the measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last April Budget would certainly be enough to prevent the unemployment problem getting worse. He did not say that he thought it was enough to make it better. At that time he criticised my right hon. Friend for that, but he said that at least it should be enough to stop unemployment getting worse and to prevent the danger of it rocketing to the 1 million mark. That was the view of the Opposition at that time.
Subsequent to that—

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend is not here, I regret to say, to speak for himself, but he made it clear at the time of the last Budget that the existing level of unemployment was unacceptably high, and he was urging the Government to do something to reduce it—and it was then 700,000.

Mr. Carr: That is a waste of time, because the right hon. Gentleman was denying a charge I never made. The case that I am making is that unemployment has moved in an unexpected way—[Laughter.] Yes, it is unexpected to both sides of the House.
The right hon. Member for Stechford said that the measures taken by my right hon. Friend last March should be sufficient at least to stop it getting worse. He said that publicly on his television broadcast following the Budget. Subsequently, the Chancellor took further massive measures in July. So, on our beliefs and on the last Chancellor's beliefs, we should not have had the developments that we have had in the last few months. Yet we still reached the million mark—

Mr. Shore: Come off it.

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman had better say "Come off it" to his right hon. Friend the last Chancellor, because I am accurately reporting his view.
Therefore, what we must recognise and try to understand is what is happening and why and what we should do about it in this new situation. I told the House last November, when I was requested to set up an inquiry, that I would instead put in hand a study in my Department of the employment position and the unemployment trends. I have done that. The study is not yet complete, but certain conclusions are already clear.
First—this needs understanding, even though, to those familiar with it, it may seem obvious—there has been a steadily rising trend in male unemployment ever since 1954—

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a new type of unemployment.

Mr. Carr: If the right hon. Gentleman would be quiet for a moment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was listened to in comparative silence.

Mr. Carr: This study also shows that increases in unemployment have been proportionately larger in the younger age groups and not in the older age groups, as is so commonly supposed. It also shows that all regions over this long period have been affected by the increase in unemployment, that their percentages have moved more or less in parallel and that, if anything, the relative difference between the regions has been growing slightly less over the 15 years.
The study also shows that industries have moved in parallel with one another and that the increase in unemployment has not been specially concentrated on the unskilled rather than the skilled or on administrative workers rather than production workers. It shows a remarkable similarity of pattern over the period, whether one analyses the period by area, by age or by occupation.
This is important to realise, because it shows that this sort of difference can be put right—perhaps more than some people have been beginning to fear—by a sustained increase in the rate of activity in the economy. What is really new is not so much the basic nature, not so much that we need fear that Keynes no longer works, but that we have had over the last few years a new scale. It is new primarily in the scale and the nature of the scale.
But first, the House should realise something else about the unemployment picture which also may be known to the few but is not known as a generality and is immensely important in working out the strategy to deal with it—namely, that the unemployment problem is far more a dynamic than a static problem. It is important to realise that year in and year out, in good times and bad, about one-quarter of a million men leave their employment every month and about another one-quarter of a million men enter new jobs every month.
This large flow on and off the register is taking place month by month—[Interruption.]—and the difference in trend upward or downward is brought about by relatively small marginal changes in the numbers coming on and going off.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept our thanks for telling the House something that was in a report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee in 1938? In view of all these new discoveries of his, may I ask him to say why neither he nor his leader said anything of this in May and June, 1970?

Mr. Carr: I am sorry if I have not gone back to 1938.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. Carr: I believe that this picture of relatively small changes in inflow and outflow on and off the register is important to understanding what will happen, because it means that we have two processes going on at the same time. We can have the further shake-outs which people have been mentioning, but at the same time these can be more than balanced by new take-ups as expansion gets under way and it requires a relatively small marginal change to alter the whole nature of the trend.
What has happened in the last 18 months to two years has been due mainly to the scale of the shake-out, and we really cannot burke the reason for its suddenness. It has without doubt, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon, been due mainly to the fact that after a number of years of running at a low rate of growth, with reducing profits and monetary squeezes, industry was short, dangerously short, of liquid resources.
When it was in that condition industry was hit by increases in labour costs of a totally unprecedented size and the reaction was inevitable. Nobody knows that better than the Leader of the Opposition. He does not have to go back to 1938 to remember that. He need go back only to his speech to the T.U.C. in 1969. When faced with this situation, the reaction of employers was inevitable. Large cost reductions had to be made, and urgently.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Carr: I will not give way.
The easiest way to make big savings quickly is to cut one's labour force. That happened throughout the country on a very large scale—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Carr: —and we found British industry as a whole making far more effective use than ever before of manpower and existing machinery.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Carr: Although this was good in itself, it happened so suddenly that the result of the wage explosion, coming on top of six years of stagnation, left us with a stubborn and difficult problem with which to deal. When we get an upturn in the expansionist cycle—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has already made a speech. Mr. Robert Carr.

Mr. Heffer: The Minister was not present to listen to it.

Mr. Carr: When we get an upturn in the expansionist cycle, employment will be taken up far less than in the past by people being absorbed back into their old jobs, and we have to face and plan for a situation in which people need to be absorbed far more than hitherto in newly created jobs.
What does this mean for the strategy of Government policy? First, I believe that it means a much higher and sustained rate of growth. To that we are absolutely committed, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear this afternoon. This surely is a need which we should welcome because it is an opportunity and not an unpleasant necessity. Second, we must plan our economy deliberately to stimulate new investment. I suggest that there are a number of conditions which we must achieve to do this.
First, there is the certainty of continuous growth, to which I have just referred and to which the Leader of the Liberal Party made particular reference. Second, if we are to stimulate new investment for new jobs, it is immensely valuable to have access to the largest possible and most rapidly growing market, and this is the importance of the European policy within this strategy. Third, if we are to get a climate for stimulating new investment, we must get industry in a situation in which it can rely on a high degree of profitability. As my right hon. Friend said, that has been made clear recently by


the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland).
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) pointed out, of the money for investment about three to four times as much comes from retained profits as comes from other sources. Therefore, this high degree of profitability, with more of the profits left in the pockets of the companies—[AN HON. MEMBER: "What about the workers?"]—is an essential provision for stimulating a high investment economy. Fourth if we are to achieve this, there must be reasonable price and cost stability, because there is no doubt that a prospect of cost inflation on anything like the levels of 1969, 1970 and the first half of 1971 is about the sharpest deterrent one can have to people's investment plans. If one looks back to the war, one sees that each of the major investment booms, both of which took place under Conservative Governments, followed a period of relative price and cost stability.
Next we have to have in this strategy a much more active and effective employment policy. [Interruption.] Here comes the importance of what my right hon. Friend said earlier about training. In June, 1970, there were about 8,000 training places within the Government's vocational training schemes. Today there are about 13,000 places, and next week we shall be announcing plans for a massive expansion in this area. But, coupled with the greater training facilities, I agree very strongly with the Leader of the Liberal Party that we must also have much more effective placing services and much better knowledge of the labour market. The placing services reform is already in hand. The greater knowledge of the labour market largely comes with it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to my Department's Manpower Research Unit. He was wrong in saying that it has not published any report. It has published about eight reports over the year, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) will know, and there are two or three more on the stocks. We are finding, not only in Britain but in other countries, that manpower forecasting on a national functional industry basis is proving very difficult and very unreliable.
What I believe is much more needed is greater market intelligence at the local

labour market level. That is the development we are moving to and already, in advance of the development of the better placing services, I have this month put in hand two special surveys of the vacancies position in two selected areas, namely, Swansea and Peterborough. We do not know enough about the vacancies available even in the market as it is now. When I have the results of those surveys, I shall consider what next to do.

Mr. Neil McBride: rose—

Mr. Carr: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way but we have shortened the length of our speeches and there are some other things that I want to say.
In addition to those points, I think there is no doubt that as we move ahead into the future, far from discouraging service industries we have to do everything we can to encourage them. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of employment taxes, either variable regionally or non-variable regionally, the S.E.T., aimed against service industries, has been a disaster and has been a contributory cause to our present difficulties.
Fifth, in our strategy there is no doubt at all that we have both the need and the opportunity over the next years to go in for a much larger programme of public works and renewal than we have been able to afford before. We have already put in hand larger additional programmes in clearing derelict land, in renovating old houses and in other public works than has ever been embarked upon. If we follow a strategy based on those points, I am in do doubt that although the battle will be hard, and may be long, it can, and it will, be won. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]
The Government are determined to wage an all-out war against unemployment. We have taken a wide and massive range of measures to get the economy moving again after those six years in its rut of stagnation, and we are determined that once started that expansion will be sustained. We recognise that after such a long period of low growth it is not easy to get confidence off the ground, but at last things are starting to move.
My right hon. Friend's forecast last July about the growth in expenditure


and purchasing is coming through, and this will come through in more jobs. We are determined to wage this war as our first priority and to continue it until we are winning. That is the Government's responsibility, and we accept it. We ask

both sides of industry, trade unions and employers, to join us in what is the nation's overall task.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 302.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, Tom
Leonard, Dick


Ashley, Jack
English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Forrester, John
McBride, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
McCartney, Hugh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
McElhone, Frank


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Booth, Albert
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackie, John


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McManus, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Buchan, Norman
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamling, William
Marquand, David


Cant. R. B.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marsden, F.


Carmichael, Neil
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Harper, Joseph
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccies)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Meacher, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, John


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Concannon, J. D.
Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce


Conlan, Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Milne, Edward


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moyle, Roland


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Ronald King


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Davidson, Arthur
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Bert


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
John, Brynmor
Orbach, Maurice


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Padley, Walter


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Paget, R. T.


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dempsey, James
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pardoe, John


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Russell
Pentland, Norman


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.


Dunn, James A.
Lambie, David





Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Silverman Julius
Wainwright, Edwin


Prescott, John
Skinner, Dennis
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Price, William (Rugby)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wallace, George


Probert, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stallard, A. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Steel, David
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Richard, Ivor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin
Whitlock, William


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roper, John
Taverne, Dick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tinn, James



Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Torney, Tom
Mr. John Golding and Mr. Tom Pendry.


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tuck, Raphael



Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.



Sillars, James
Varley, Eric G.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Critchley, Julian
Haselhurst, Alan


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Hastings, Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey
Crowder, F. P.
Havers, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Curran, Charles
Hawkins; Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hay, John


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hayhoe, Barney


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Heseltine, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dean, Paul
Hicks, Robert


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Higgins, Terence L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hiley, Joseph


Benyon, W.
Dixon, Piers
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Holt, Miss Mary


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh
Hordern, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eden, Sir John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Body, Richard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Boscawen, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fell, Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Braine, Bernard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Iremonger, T. L.


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brewis, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
James, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fortescue, Tim
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foster, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bryan, Paul
Fox, Marcus
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jopling, Michael


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kershaw, Anthony


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kilfedder, James


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kimball, Marcus


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Channon, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Kinsey, J. H.


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John
Kirk, Peter


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gower, Raymond
Kitson, Timothy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Churchill, W. S.
Gray, Hamish
Knox, David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Green, Alan
Lambton, Antony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lane, David


Clegg, Walter
Grylls, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cockeram, Eric
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cooke, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Le Marchant, Spencer


Coombs, Derek
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cooper, A. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Longden, Sir Gilbert



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.








Loveridge, John
Osborn, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, R. N.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


MacArthur, Ian
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


McCrindle, R. A.
Parkinson, Cecil
Stokes, John


McLaren, Martin
Peel, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Percival, Ian
Sutcliffe, John


McMaster, Stanley
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tapsell, Peter


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maddan, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Madel, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tebbit, Norman


Maginnis, John E.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Marten, Neil
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mather, Carol
Raison, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maude, Angus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tilney, John


Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Trew, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Waddington, David


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Moate, Roger
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Money, Ernie
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Monro, Hector
Rost, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Royle, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


More, Jasper
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Morrison, Charles
Sharples, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Murton, Oscar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Younger, Hn. George


Normanton, Tom
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nott, John
Speed, Keith
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Onslow, Cranley
Spence, John



Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sproat, Iain



Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stainton, Keith

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting the Motion relating to Education (S.I., No. 1788) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half past Eleven o'clock; and that the Motion relating to Parliamentary Questions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock or for a period of one hour after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — DIRECT-GRANT SCHOOLS REGULATIONS

10.13 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move,
That the Direct Grant Schools (Amendment) Regulations 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1788), dated 25th October, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th November, 1971, be withdrawn.
One could say that the principle underlying the regulations against which we are praying tonight is the same as the principle to which we objected when money was saved by withdrawing school milk from primary schoolchildren, the money going in this instance to the direct-grant schools. It is the same group of people, in the main, who had the benefit of the first tax reduction by this Government who are the principal beneficiaries of the proposed increase in help to direct-grant schools.
The Government now, as they did when in opposition, have made clear their determination to protect the interests of the direct-grant schools, in contrast to the policy which we maintained when we were in office. These schools cater for the children of people already privileged in terms of income. It is these schools which refuse to co-operate in comprehensive reorganisation and which, therefore, feel threatened by the refusal of some Labour-controlled education authorities, a refusal which I am glad to see, to take up further places. These schools have been given a shot in the arm by the Government, and we have heard the Government's defence of what they have done. This help has taken the form of an increase in the capitation grant for each child in the schools from £32 to £62. This follows a cut from £52 to £32 made by the Labour Government when they

were, rightly, unwilling to subsidise a highly selective independent education for predominantly middle-class children whose parents opted out from the fully maintained system of education.
The schools have been told by the Government that this extra money must be passed on to parents in reduced fees and not spent on expanding or changing school resources. In addition, there have been improvements in the scale of remission of fees so that, for example, parents with one child and with a net income of £2,800 a year will now need to contribute only £120 in fees instead of £196.
In so far as these additional subsidies will encourage more parents to opt for the highly selective education provided in these schools and help schools in areas where local authorities are no longer taking up places, they are a further deliberate Government move against further proposals to end selection in education. So much for the Secretary of State's avowed policy of laissez-faire in comprehensive education.
The Secretary of State defended her decision by claiming, among other things, that she would enable more children from less well-off homes to attend direct-grant schools. Not a shred of evidence was produced for that assertion. Even if it were true, privilege in education is not ended by being extended to a few more children. That merely enhances the privilege and builds on it. But it was not true, and the right hon. Lady has so far produced no evidence to show that parents in the lower-income groups will be able to send their children to direct-grant schools.
What is wrong with this principle is the assumption behind it. Throughout all the Government's actions in education, on the comprehensive principle and direct-grant schools, has been the assumption that that type of education is to be preferred, that it is better, and that if it can be shown that a few more children from the lower-income groups and working-class homes have managed to get what the Government would consider to be up the ladder and into these schools, they benefit. What is overlooked, apart from the money involved, is the assumption that the education values enshrined in direct-grant


schools and public schools and elsewhere in an independent and semi-independent education are the better values. We totally reject the concept that it is a good thing for more and more children from lower-income groups to be encouraged into direct-grant schools, for example, so that in that way it will be shown that they have been successful.
The tragedy—and it is one of the features that the right hon. Lady has enhanced and enshrined in her education policies—is that the successful working-class child is the child who has learned middle-class values and middle-class tricks in education. This we totally and utterly reject. It does not follow, and there is no evidence to support the contention, that the so-called values applied by society in terms of education are necessarily the best values which we want to see extended to the majority of our children. We object to the principle as well as to the fact that other aspects of welfare such as school milk have been affected to give this help to the direct-grant schools. There have also been the tax concessions which I mentioned earlier. It will often be the taxpayer in the lower-income group whose money will be used.
Much has been said about the number of children from various backgrounds entering particular sectors of independent education. Much has been said about the better type of education, particularly from hon. Members opposite, which the direct-grant schools can offer. Again it is questionable. Be that as it may, it is said that it is of more value to give money to these schools than to give milk to working-class children or to spend the money on nursery education or secondary schools.
Only two out of 170 direct-grant schools offer co-education. They teach about 3 per cent. of the secondary school population. That is a small percentage, but it includes 10 per cent. of all sixth formers. The majority of these schools are selective and predominantly middleclass institutions. Three out of four pupils come from the homes of white-collar workers, three out of five have fathers in professional or managerial occupations. Only one out of 13 comes from a semi-skilled or unskilled worker's

family. Hon. Members opposite may say that this is not the fault of the direct-grant school. My case is that when it is argued, as hon. and right hon. Members opposite have argued, that educational resources are limited, and it is necessary to make cuts in certain areas to give more to others, it is necessary to be careful and to ensure that we are giving the benefits in education to these most in need. This is not happening with the extra money being made available to the direct-grant schools. It is easy for educationists to point out that education is improving since more and more children are staying at school, entering university and achieving success in certain areas. But the argument, unfortunately, fails to deal with what is happening at the other end of the scale. What people who use that argument ought to recognise is that the more we invest in this area of education, unless it is more than compensated for in other areas of education, the more we widen the gaps between children who society has, in my view mistakenly, called successful and those who society has decided are unsuccessful.
The like backgrounds of children in the direct-grant schools relate very largely to the ability of middle-class parents in particular income groups to pay fees, and the bias in selection in the 11-plus examination and university entrance, and so on, directly influences the success of these children later in life. This is one of the things we criticise. About 60 per cent. of direct grant grammar school pupils stay on at school until they are 18. Sixty-two per cent. of boys and 50 per cent. of girls obtain two or more A levels. Seventy-five per cent. go on to some form of full time education. Roughly 38 per cent. go on to university.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: What is wrong with that?

Miss Lestor: In the context of the present education system, there is nothing wrong in young people being successful in this or that area. But the money being given to parents who do not need it could well be spent in giving aid and opportunity to children at the lower end of the scale in secondary schools who are denied the same opportunities because of the selective process, particularly in relation to universities.

Sir George Sinclair: Has the hon. Lady considered the situation in some of the direct grant schools in the rural areas which for generations have provided an education of excellence for children in the surrounding areas—

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Rubbish.

Sir G. Sinclair: I am governor of such a school and I know it is not rubbish. These schools are strongly supported by the families who have taken advantage of the opportunities they provide. They are not families of great wealth. In fact, their income levels go down to the lowest in the areas. These schools have provided a springboard for able children, and if that is bad I do not know what sort of England I want to exist.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman has, in a sense, understood what I was trying to say.

Sir G. Sinclair: We always understand each other.

Miss Lestor: I would not say that.
One could argue that the direct grant schools are remarkably successful in sending pupils to university. But the more we invest in privilege in education, and the more we build on privilege for those who already have it, the more we discriminate against those at the lower end of the scale. This is wrong. It is absolutely unfair, unwise and socially and economically wasteful to say, "We propose to give this group of people extra help in education. They already have privilege. They are already more likely to be successful by virtue of the selective system which predominates in relation to university entrance. But we will give them a helping hand at the expense of children in the primary schools and others and the majority of children in the secondary schools." That is what is wrong with those values. It is unfortunate that we do not have a great deal of time for debate. When the hon. Gentleman talks about excellence I doubt very much whether we agree on exactly what is excellence in education. The hon. Gentleman takes very much for granted some of the long-standing concepts of success and excellence in education.

Sir G. Sinclair: rose—

Miss Lestor: I will not give way again. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance and he made his point. Now I am answering it.
So long as we have such a system in education, which, with its roots in selection at the age of 11, has a great deal to do with social and educational snobbery, and so long as local authorities use selection procedures and cream off what society has said are the brighter children, and send them to direct grant schools and other selective schools, no system of comprehensive education can be established. That is why I believe extra help is being given to those schools, and that is why in particular a great deal of concern has been expressed over the years about the way in which the comprehensive principle is being interfered with.
The Labour Government had plans to change the rôle of the direct grant schools by making them completely independent, as the other independent sectors of education are, and removing—[Interruption.]— I wish the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) would learn to keep quiet. He has been in the House a long time.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: No. I am very good at lip-reading, and I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman at this point.
We can, not and will not, with our views on comprehensive education, support any move to give extra help to the direct grant schools as they now exist. They should become part of the State system of education or make themselves fully independent.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Miss Lestor: I will not give way.
We must remind the country that the person who will be called upon to make this contribution to the direct grant schools is the taxpayer. He foots the bill. He also pays for the charitable status of the schools, which enables them, for example, to pay only half the rates that other organisations and householders pay. S.E.T. relief and general tax relief on income are examples of other concessions the direct grant schools


receive, and now they are to receive extra help.
There are priorities in education, with large numbers of children not getting fair and equal opportunities. The Government are not, as we were, directing themselves to ironing out inequalities and enhancing the principle of social justice in education, but are directing themselves to frustrating the principle of comprehensive education, enshrining the principle of privilege and building privilege upon privilege. We reject that principle and that is why we oppose the regulations.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) paid a great tribute to direct grant schools in criticising their quality and the range of achievement their pupils have consistently attained, but she went on to say that she wished to destroy not only these schools but the values they stand for. This is not an ironing out of inequalities but a levelling down which surely would harm the nation considerably.
Whatever the hon. Lady may think of the virtues of destroying or denigrating educational and academic achievement, it is not a wise policy in the context of our joining the E.E.C., where British people of ability and academic achievement will be required in increasing numbers.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The question of academic achievement exercises my mind. The hon. Gentleman is saying that direct grant schools provide academic achievement, but surely, 60 or 70 years after the 1902 Act, academic achievement is not just in the direct grant schools—

Sir G. Sinclair: Who said it was?

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman will only listen. If there were no State grammar school in an area 50 or 60 years ago one could see the case for sending a child to a direct grant school, but what is the reason for a direct grant school in an area where there are plenty of excellent State grammar schools? I went to a State grammar school which was a very good school. I also believe in comprehensive education. What is the case for sending children to a direct grammar

school to attain academic excellence when the facilities are available within the State system?

Mr. Hill: Surely to provide variety and to keep a sector which bridges the gap between the fully maintained and the independent sectors. I have never claimed, and would not dream of claiming, that direct grant schools are the sole centres of academic achievement; far from it. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough discounted the values of academic achievement, and that is a dangerous and unwise thing to do.
These regulations are essentially of a financial nature. I agree with the hon. Lady that they restore the reduction made by the Government which she supported in 1968 of £20 a year in the capitation fee. The restoration of that £20, with the extra £10, goes some way to meet the increase in costs which stem from before 1968. She is right to say that this money goes to the reduction of fees for parents. I should like to emphasise that the school themselves get nothing.
My right hon. Friend has kept an election pledge. We said that we would restore that cut. We have gone further by revising the income scales for the remission of fees. What ever the hon. Lady may say, this has opened up the prospect of a direct grant school education for their children to a whole new range of parental incomes.
The hon. Lady gave one level of net income. The one which I should like to quote is the fact that the net income limit below which no contribution has to be made by the parents has been moved up from £450 to £1,000 a year. A family with one child at a direct grant school, with an income of £20 a week, who would, under the old system, have paid £46 a year, will now pay nothing. A family with an income of £1,360 a year, or £27 a week, will now pay £24, as against £76 under the old system.
When the hon. Lady says that this applies only to rich middle class parents, perhaps she will reflect that there are at least 12 million incomes in this country below £1,360 a year and that the average earnings in 1970 for men in the 30–39 age group, in all occupations, was £29 a week. For manual workers it was over £27 a


week. Even for unskilled manual workers it was £24 a week—well above these minimum scales.
Therefore, it is not so much middle-class incomes as middle-class values to which the hon. Lady objects. The middle classes, so called, with their values, tend to think well of education. Their homes tend to be educationally sympathetic. It is now being said that this is so of the new polytechnics. We must face this human tendency. Surely it is much more important to level upwards and not downwards and hope that more and more families will take this increased interest in education.
This is also a question of priorities, as well as of redeeming pledges. The hon. Lady has explained that she wishes to destroy direct grant schools; and her right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Science said this explicitly. He wants to destroy the direct grant school and independent schools as soon as he can. But, financially, on his own figures, as given last April in an article which is pretty notorious, that would cost £60 million a year on current account and £150 in capital account. That seems an extraordinary choice of priorities in our present national economic position.
The Department has paid nothing for the capital and building work of these schools, yet Appendix 7 of the Donnison Report shows that, in the 15 years from 1950 to 1965, the direct grant school raised £21 million by way of appeals, by borrowing and by drawing on their endowment funds, and used that money mainly for new classrooms, teaching facilities, science laboratories and the rest—all matters of improvement.
That sum passed the Labour Government's programme for the improvement of secondary schools several times. One must recognise the contribution which these schools have made, which would otherwise have fallen as a burden on the State. Whatever views the hon. Lady may hold on this subject, the L.E.A.'s as a whole have made full use of direct grant schools, as was made clear in a Written Answer on 5th November, 1971, from which one gathered that the L.E.A.'s were paying fees for over 50 per cent. of the children in over one-half of direct grant schools. The reasons are manifold; that these schools fulfill the needs not only of parents but of L.E.A.'s to provide

different kinds of schooling, much of it denominational and some of it boarding.
As for boarding places, the remission scheme for tuition fees does not apply under the Regulations and I hope that this point will be examined with a view to seeing whether tuition fees for boarders might also have the advantages of being eligible for this scale of remission.
The direct grant schools offer a welcome variety and their sole justification should be on grounds of independence. In a society which is becoming steadily more homogeneous—but perhaps not as quickly as hon. Gentlemen opposite would like—it is important that, if it is to be a free society, it should avoid any monopoly trends. I dislike the idea of the State becoming the sole purveyor of education. Certainly it must be the biggest one, but an independent and direct grant sector, protecting the community as a whole from becoming dominated by changing fashions in education—

Miss Lestor: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman in mid-flight, but in view of his argument about the importance of having an independent sector in education to avoid the monopoly of the State, may I ask him to explain why he supports a move to make these schools less independent? If he wants them to be independent, why not remove the grant completely?

Mr. Hill: Because the hon. Lady mistakes independence as merely being independent means. I am concerned to provide for people of independent minds as well whatever their incomes. That is the essential difference, and unless the State provides that variety in its education system, it bodes ill for the health of the community.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I am anxious to bring the discussion back to the subject immediately under debate. We are not discussing direct grant schools or the value of the independent sector. My hon. Friends are opposing the decision of the Government to allocate £2 million of public money to a purpose which, in the present state of education in Britain, is unwarranted expenditure.
This £2 million will not be spent on improving schools but on giving relief to


privileged parents to send their privileged children to privileged schools. When the Secretary of State leads her supporters into the Lobby in support of the Government's decision in this matter, they will be voting to spend this money, despite all the other priorities that we have discussed time and again, to relieve these parents of the need to pay fees at direct grant schools.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Including the parents of miners.

Mr. Armstrong: The Tories are always commending secondary modern schools for other people's children.
We have independent judgment on the type of school that we have been talking about tonight. They are the most selective schools in the State, even more selective than independent schools. We are spending £2 million. That is a lot of money.
Today we have been debating unemployment. If the same proportion of children who receive free meals in our schools—by a means test in which their families are judged unable to provide an adequate meal—were given free milk at school, this £2 million would more than pay for it. So when the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends go into the Lobby tonight they will be saying that relieving the burden of fees for parents is more important than providing milk for children whose parents can prove by a means test that they are unable to provide that milk. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will bear that in mind when voting.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) talks about the need for an independent sector financed by public money. I should like him to tell me of any innovation in education—there has been a tremendous number recently—which originated in the direct grant schools. The hon. Gentleman is not showing much evidence of—

Sir G. Sinclair: One of the masters of a direct grant school helped to pioneer the new mathematics. I hate to have to correct the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow.

Mr. Armstrong: The State sector has certainly had an equal share in its development, and not in the direct grant sector because that sector is concerned

more than anything else with the university rat race. That is why it is so popular among the middle classes.
I want to examine this expenditure of £2 million. We have heard about the number of parents of modest means. That is how the Minister described the parents she was helping. Let us look at the record. The right hon Lady has said that where the parents have a gross in—come of £2,500—that is not regarded as a modest income in the northern region, especially in my constituency—under the regulations the parents' contribution to the fees of the school would be reduced by no less than £70 a year for one child or £105 a year for two children.
I want to compare those figures with some figures I should like to give about children in the northern region. It has been admitted by all sides of the House—certainly those who have read Plowden will know this—that hundreds of thousands of children, because of home background and the difficulties and inadequacies of the school, many schools being in downtown areas, and so on, do not get even a semblance of equality of opportunity. They are handicapped before they ever reach school at the age of five. The hon. Gentleman talked about the middle class being interested in education—as though no one else was interested. Has he never heard of South Wales? I am amazed that my right hon. Friend did not intervene when the hon. Gentleman spoke about only the middle class being interested. As headmaster of a school in a mining community, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the parents there are vitally interested in their children's education. Make no mistake about that.
Let us look at the provisions made by local authorities operating maintenance grants. I know that the responsibility for this is with the local authorities. There are no mandatory provisions, but it may interest the Minister to know that in the northern region the maximum grant for a boy of 15 is £123 a year, yet unless we defeat these regulations parents with a gross income of £2,500 will be relieved of paying £70 for one child.
As I have said, the maximum grant for a boy of 15 staying at school after the statutory leaving age is £123. To qualify for that the net income—I shall come to gross income in a moment—of


his parents must not exceed £375. The net income is arrived at by taking the gross income of both parents and deducting a maximum of £4·25 for rent, rates, mortgage payments, and so on, and £120 for each dependent child under 18. That means that a family of a man, his wife and two boys, one aged 12 and the other 15, must have a gross wage of no more than £836, or £16 a week to qualify for the grant. There we have the test of the one nation to which the Prime Minister referred when he came to office. We have to talk about these things when we are trying to establish equality of opportunity for youngsters.
Some time ago I asked the Minister a Question about direct-grant schools in the northern region. I received a Written Answer in which I was told that there were 6,230 pupils in direct-grant schools. Government money paid directly to those schools during 1970 amounted to £504,868, or an average of £81 per pupil. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about an independent sector. They talk about freedom in education. This is a system for privileged children from privileged homes at the expense of the public. And that £81 per child does not include money which goes to these schools for pupils are financed by local authorities in that area.
This privileged sector is encouraged in a narrow sphere of education. That is not my judgment. If hon. Gentlemen opposite read the Report of the Public School Commission they will find it there. Sir Alec Clegg has given evidence, which nobody can refute, that an able child does as well in a comprehensive or State grammar school as in a direct-grant school.
This handout to those who are already privileged makes nonsense of any talk about equality of educational opportunity. It is an insult to those engaged in the State system. The Minister came to the N.U.T. conference last year and spoke about the problems of the slow learner. She warned teachers that because of the economic situation, and because of the terrific expenditure on education, they had to look after the slow learner, but they could not expect any extra allocation of resources because funds were so tight. The same thing

applies to nursery education. I do not need to plead the cause of the nursery schools.
We all know that dedicated teachers in the State sector—and a great deal of the innovation in education has come from the State sector—are struggling to give children in their care equality of opportunity. What incentive is there for them when they see this piece of legislation which is not going to help schools in any way?
If these regulations were withdrawn tonight it would not mean the end of the direct-grant school. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the expenditure of £2 million of our educational resources. I defy the Minister or anyone else, in the face of the present shortages and difficulties and all the handicaps we find in our schools, to justify giving that amount, not to this sector of education but to parents who are choosing privileged education for their children.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I have some respect for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), but I do not think that his argument tonight is worthy of him. As the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) made clear, this debate is not so much about the best way of spending £2 million as about the principle of the direct-grant school. She said quite specifically that this was what she had in mind; that her object was to see the direct grant schools turned either into independent schools or incorporated into the State school system.
I want to show why I think that there is still a very important rôle for the direct grant school at a time when the State system as a whole is clearly moving towards comprehensives. I am by no means unsympathetic to the comprehensive schools. I took part in a working party of a local authority just before I was elected to the House which recommended their introduction into a particular area, and I think that there is very much to be said for them. On the other hand, I am still worried about one or two aspects of the educational scene which are affecting comprehensive schools at the moment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the terms of the regulations. Passing references to the system are in order, but we are talking about the amounts that should be given in capitation, not the general principles.

Mr. Raison: I was about to say that within this present set-up there are good reasons for saying that it is important to preserve the direct grant schools and, in particular, to make sure that they are open to as wide a section of the community as possible. The whole purpose of reducing fees to the direct grant schools is to make sure that the children of the less well off will continue to be able to attend them. That, I understand, is what the regulations are about.
What are the reasons? First, there is the factor of variety in choice mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill). Secondly, perhaps more importantly, there is threatening the State sector as a whole, and inevitably the comprehensive schools in particular, a kind of anti-intellectualism which it is very important should not be allowed to swamp the secondary school system.
We have had glimpses certainly from the hon. Lady, and even more strongly from outside, of what this anti-intellectualism has in mind. It is based to a degree on a very strong form of egalitarianism. People are so concerned with the importance of absolute equality in the schools that they are prepared to throw academic standards out of the window.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No one said that.

Mr. Raison: I have absolutely no doubt about this tendency. There is in the anti-intellectualism movement a kind of misplaced egalitarianism. This is coupled with the point raised by the hon. Lady—the question of class barriers. It is argued that the traditional educational values which are embodied in the direct-grant schools are middle-class values. This may well be true, but I believe that it does no good to anyone to say that those traditional educational values should be chucked out of the window and replaced by something which is alleged to be in tune with working-class values.
This view is very widely expressed, and had been hinted at by the hon. Lady this evening. There is a serious threat. It is a patronising and condescending approach. The traditional educational values have just as much to offer the working class as anyone else today, and the special function of the direct grant schools is to make sure that these traditional standards are available to all children. I am not for a minute denying that there are comprehensive schools where these values are as well upheld as they are anywhere else. The evidence that the comprehensive schools can achieve good academic standards is now strong. On the other hand, in some comprehensive schools there is a threat that values that seem to me to be anti-educational will provide the prevailing ethos. This is particularly true in some of the more difficult parts of the country.
It seems to me, therefore, that the special rôle of the direct grant schools is to act as a safety valve, to make sure that for the children in some of the tougher areas where there is a risk of educational standards being swamped there is this alternative. Unless the direct grant schools are enabled financially to take pupils rich and poor, it will not be possible for them to serve a very important role. For this reason, I support my right hon. Friend in her proposals.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) whose views on education should be listened to with care, even though I do not agree with all of them. I think he was at one time a member of the Central Advisory Council for England, with the power to give advice to the then Minister of Education, and I hope once again that that Council will be able to give advice to the right hon. Lady. She certainly needs plenty of it.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman in his statement that the direct grant schools provide a wider choice. This is only true to a limited extent. We have to ask the question—a wider choice for whom? The answer is that it is only those whom the direct grant schools allow to go into them.
The point that the hon. Gentleman made about academic standards I can accept up to a point, but the great difficulty is that many of these schools, if


not all of them, rely on their academic or scholastic attainment not through developing the talent which comes to them but by selecting the talent which is already apparently there. This is one of the great distortions which we have had in our education system since 1902. It was the Balfour Act that produced the injection of public money into voluntary schools—a great step forward it seemed at the time. They produced the ladder of opportunity, to which so much reference has been made by the party opposite, and which even the right hon. Lady so successfully mounted. That has distorted the whole picture of English education, as I tried to show in a speech on 5th November.
I should like the right hon. Lady to confirm one or two points about these figures. The figure of £2 million has been bandied about on both sides of the House. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that this covers both the increased capitation and the fee remission? If so, can she tell me roughly the proportions? If the figure is more than £2 million—I know that it is difficult to estimate it because we do not know the parents' incomes and how they might change—could she say how much more than £2 million the expected increase of expenditure will be?
I wish to turn to the point made by my hon. Friend about the increase in expenditure. In an Answer to a Written Question on 11th November, 1971, the right hon. Lady told me that a person who is earning £2,500 a year with one child at a direct grant school will have a reduction in fees of £70; with two children £105; with three children £142. But a parent with three children at direct grant schools and with an income of £1,000 gets a reduction of only £68. So the bigger the income, the bigger the reduction. That is the burden of the regulations against which we are praying. It is quite unfair, because the right hon. Lady's objective, she says, is to widen the opportunity for those on modest incomes, so one would have expected the increase given to these parents to be inversely proportional to their income. In fact, it is the reverse, the more income a man has, the greater is his tax relief. That is the effect of these grants. It is completely in line with Tory philosophy, but it has nothing to do with education.
The word "selection" has been bandied about. As I said, it has distorted our picture of education in this country. In a speech in our last debate on the subject, which I tried to make in non-party vein, I referred to a noble Lord who is a well known figure in the direct grant school world. I was chided by the right hon. Lady for referring to him, and I think that she did not grasp that the reason why that person is a controversial figure is not only the fact of his position on a certain Commission but the further fact that his educational experience has, in the view of most teachers in this country, been extremely limited, limited to schools with a different sort of philosophy and with pupils very different from those we find in the country as a whole.
I shall be brief, because the right hon. Lady has a great deal to justify tonight, and I do not want to restrict her time. But I must put to something which has happened in my constituency in relation to a direct grant school which gives a salutary example of the turn which events can take. In my speech on 5th November, I pointed out that there was a denominational Roman Catholic secondary school in my constituency which occupied buildings built by the Acton School Board in 1888, and, because of the right hon. Lady's arbitrary action in not allowing the education authority to improve the buildings, it had to sit tight. On the other hand, a few miles up the road, there is a direct grant school which is being showered with largesse. This direct grant school is run by the Haberdashers' Company, a great City charitable institution.
It has been the habit of the Tory Party and the ladies and gentlemen whom it represents to make sure that these schools are available where the demand arises. It so happens that in London now there is developing an outer ring of rather lusher suburbs where incomes are higher and conditions are rather better. I call it "outer salubria".
The Haberdashers' Company wishes to move that direct grant school in my constituency to the environs of Elstree. This has disappointed many of my constituents. I do not support their views on direct grant schools, and they know it, but I think that it can at least be said that, on the whole, the parents in and around Acton and Ealing are not so well


off as those in the Elstree area of Hertfordshire. Yet the governors of the school wish to move it to an area where the parents are already living in better conditions and are already better off.
Some people have even been so unkind as to suggest that, once the school goes there, having "jacked up" its reputation as a result of this injection of public money, it may in the not too distant future wish to go independent. I gather from her answer to my Question today that the right hon. Lady does not intend to put any conditions on the move it wishes to make, and which she must approve if it is to go there.
These matters are partly hypothetical, but, if the school is given permission to move, and it does go to Elstree, the effect of its going from my area to an area already more privileged will be exactly the reverse of what the right hon. Lady wants to see in direct grant schools. I hope, therefore, that she will at least consider this, looking at the picture of direct grant schools as a whole. They are privileged schools. The teachers in them are privileged in the pupils they have, because they are selected either on a basis of scholastic attainment or on social background.
Let hon. Members opposite, even the one from a rural area, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill)—I take his point—ask one question of the headmasters of their direct grant schools, "How do you select your pupils?". They will receive some very interesting answers.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I promise not to take more than five minutes, so I will go rapidly over the few points I want to make. It is important to try to get into perspective the specific problem with which we are dealing tonight, and then a great deal of the huffing and puffing from the Opposition will be shown as the nonsense that it is. We are dealing with the simple rectification of an injustice and a breach of faith which was carried out by the Labour Government in 1967–68. The capitation fee was not only not increased to keep pace with the increase in costs but was actually reduced, completely contrary to the understanding which the direct grant schools had always had of the future

policy of the Department of Education and Science.
Hon. Members opposite have suggested that all this money is going in relief of parents' fees. This is not true. More than half the direct grant school places are taken by local authorities, and the increase in the capitation fee will relieve the ratepayers' contribution as well as the central contribution of the local authorities. More than half the pupils concerned are in free places paid for by local authorities.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) said, the relief through the new capitation fees is proportionately greater, the lower the income of the parents. It increases as the level of income increases, but the proportion of the relief at the lower, end of the income scale is greater than at the higher end. The figures show that this is true.
We are talking about a net cost to public funds of approximately 2 million. That is well under 0·1 per cent. of the entire education budget. Spread over the primary system, the nursery school system, the secondary school maintained system and so on, this sum would be a mere flea bite. This will put the direct grant schools in the position they would have occupied if they had not been let down by the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) when he was Minister of Education.
The fuss from the Opposition is not about £2 million but about a philosophical, ideological dislike of the direct grant system. When the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) said that these were highly selective schools he was right. They select the brightest working-class children and send them to universities. This is what the Opposition call privilege. It is the kind of privilege which a number of working-class children and their parents are delighted and proud to have had, because without it their education would not have been a patch on what it has been.
It is no good pretending that in Manchester, where the local authority is trying to contract out of sending children to free places in Manchester grammar schools, hon. Members will find a large number of delighted working-class children because they will not. The Opposition


are showing envy and a kind of dog-in-the-manger attitude and trying to destroy for many working-class children an education they could not have hoped to reach by any other means. This is being done at minute cost. If I were an hon. Member opposite, trying to create the kind of fuss they have been creating, I would at least have the honesty to say that it was envy and not educational considerations which led me to make it.

11.19 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The debate has ranged widely from those who want to abolish direct grant schools to those who for the time being would leave them alone, but not give them any extra money, although that would result in a substantial increase in fees, to those on my side of the House who would positively encourage them because they have such an outstanding academic record and because they have served a wide section of the community and are undoubtedly in great demand by parents. The dilemma was illustrated very well by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) who admitted that there was a direct grant school in his constituency and that, although he disagreed with it, there was a demand for it to stay there. This means that many parents want their children to be able to go to direct grant schools and judging by the number of applications that come into my office, there is an increasing demand for direct grant schools in many areas.
At the moment there are 176 of these schools of which one third are Roman Catholic. Eighty-one are boys' schools, 93 girls' schools and two are mixed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) pointed out, a large number of places are reserved for local education authorities if they wish to take them up. But the essence of direct grant schools is that 25 per cent. of the places must be provided free to pupils who have been in maintained primary schools for a minimum of two years. On top of that proportion there is a reserve for local education authorities of another 25 per cent. if they wish to take them up. At the moment more than 50 per cent. of the places in direct grant schools are paid for by local authorities. In addition, the rest of the places are provided according to an income scale for other parents who

send their children to these schools, and that is why it is so important to have a realistic income scale.
As the hon. Member for Acton pointed out, a substantial sum of money comes from the Department to remit fees to parents whose income warrants this remission. At the moment it is about £1 million and the extra will be £0·6 million, so that the total going to parents who pay less than the full fees at direct grant schools will be £1·6 million a year, and it is money very well spent.
A number of hon. Members have said that these schools are for those who are already privileged in terms of income. I have described the number of absolutely free places, admittedly upon the basis of selection, except in the case of two direct grant schools which are comprehensive, but the majority are on the basis of selection by ability. I will now describe the type of income groups which will benefit from the improved income scales.
Some hon. Members opposite have described them as privileged in terms of income. Let us see what that privilege consists of. A family with an income of £20 a week and with one child wishing to go to a direct grant school used to have to pay £46 a year. I hope that no one will say that a family with a total income of £20 a week is a highly privileged family. Under my income scale which has now been introduced that family will pay nothing.

Mr. Albert Booth: How many are there?

Mrs. Thatcher: They will now be able to apply for the first time. These schools are very greatly in demand. If I could build them all over the country, or, rather, if the foundations would build them all over the country, for it is the foundations which provide the capital cost, not the State, we should have a great extra demand for these places and if there were free places there would be many applicants from families of that income level.
A family with an income of £30 a week used to have to pay £88 a year for a child at school; it is now £36 a year. The family with an income of £40 a week used to pay £136; it is now £72. These are not people with privileged incomes. They are ordinary people who


are keen on their children having an excellent education and who wish to encourage these schools.
The capitation grant is the subject of the order. It used to be £52 and that was reduced by the Labour Government in 1968 in spite of many increases in costs, mainly increases in pay to teachers, but including others. They reduced the capitation grant from £52 to £32. We are restoring it to £52 plus the extra £10 to meet further increases in salary scales to teachers. The hon. Lady argues that this increase ought not to be made now. If her argument is correct all of the schools should be taken over totally and all of the places paid for completely. This was her argument. That is her policy. In that case we should be paying not £62 per child at the direct grant schools but a full £187 per child which is the average cost for a secondary school place, and not £84 towards the sixth form place in a direct grant school but a full £300 per child which is the average cost of a sixth form place.
If we were to follow her advice we would be spending even more upon what she has called the privileged sector of the community. In spite of the capitation grant being cut the schools did survive, which was a great tribute to the loyalty and determination of the parents. In so far as the local education authorities do not take up free places those free places have to be provided by the governors out of the fees paid by other parents. The alternatives as I see it would be to increase the pressure on costs, so that the fees would have to rise. Unless the income scales were changed very quickly the schools would soon consist of the neces-

sary 25 per cent. free places at one end of the scale and very high fees at the other, which would be out of the reach of most people.

It is not a situation which most of us would wish to see because it would deprive a number of people who have enjoyed at these schools the benefit of an excellent education suited to their talents. Or there could be a total takeover which would be more expensive. Or we could do what we have done—increase the capitation grant and improve the income scales to keep these schools within reach of many parents.

The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) asked me about costs. The actual increase in capital costs £3,100,000 to central funds but is reduced by the lower fees charged to the local education authorities of £1,800,000 leaving a net capitation cost of £1,300,000 net. Add to that the improved income scales, an increase of an extra £600,000 and the actual cost to public funds is £1·9 million. I rounded that up not down. The real difference between us is that we wish to encourage direct grant schools because of the excellence of their academic record and we wish to see them available to many children to whom they would not otherwise be available unless we took the step embodied in these Regulations.

To build may be the laborious task of years; to destroy can be the foolish act of a single day. I ask the House to allow these Regulations to continue in their present form.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 285.

Division No. 41.]
AYES
[11.29 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Albu, Austen
Bishop, E. S.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cohen, Stanley


Ashley, Jack
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Conlan, Bernard


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John


Baxter, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Beaney, Alan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)




Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Rankin, John


Delargy, H. J.
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;Ridnor)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sandelson, Neville


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Sillars, James


Evans, Fred
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius


Ewing, Henry
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McGuire, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Foot, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Stallard, A. W.


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, David


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas


Golding, John
Marsden, F.
Taverne, Dick


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tomney, Frank


Hamling, William
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward
Varley, Eric G.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Horam, John
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woof, Robert


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred




Pendry, Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Balniel, Lord
Biffen, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Blaker, Peter


Astor, John
Bell, Ronald
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Body, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Benyon, W.
Boscawen, Robert







Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bray, Ronald
Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Havers, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hay, John
Nott, John


Bryan, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John


Burden, F. A.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Holt, Miss Mary
Parkinson, Cecil


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Peel, John


Channon, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Clegg, Walter
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Coombs, Derek
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cordle, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crouch, David
Kilfedder, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Curran, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
Royle, Anthony


Dixon, Piers
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Soref, Harold


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Fell, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Spence, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McMaster, Stanley
Sproat, Iain


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fortescue, Tim
Madel, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Foster, Sir John
Magginis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fowler, Norman
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Green, Alan
Molyneaux, James
Trew, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gummer, Selwyn
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Waddington, David




Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)







Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wiggin, Jerry
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Walters, Dennis
Wilkinson, John
Younger, Hn. George


Ward, Dame Irene
Winterton, Nicholas



Warren, Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weatherill, Bernard
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Hamish Gray and Mr. Michael Jopling


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Worsley, Marcus



Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Before I call the Lord President to move the Motion standing in his name, I should make clear that strictly speaking the Motion and Amendment must be taken in three parts. We shall take the first part down to and including
Mr. John Hall".
Then I shall call upon the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to move his Amendment, in line 6
after 'Hall' insert 'Mr. Arthur Lewis'",
and then we shall take the remainder of the Motion.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the practice and procedure in relation to Questions and Question Time in the House and to recommend what changes might be desirable:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House:
That Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. John Hall, be members of the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As many of that opinion say "Aye", to the contrary—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to debate the first part of the Motion. I rose as soon as you put the Question, just before you collected the voices, because before we come to my Amendment, I want to debate the principle of the Motion. I do not object to the Motion as such, but I want to make some comments and get some facts on to the record. I should like the Leader of the House to let me know when he announced the setting up of the Committee—

Mr. Whitelaw: It was on 14th December.

Mr. Lewis: I am very much obliged. I wish to pay the right hon. Gentleman a very sincere tribute and to thank him most sincerely for providing the opportunity to debate the matter and for meeting me to discuss it. I also pay tribute to the Chief Patronage Secretary for meeting me and discussing it. My only regret is that I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in three letters and a personal approach also to meet me to discuss it, but unfortunately he was too busy, and I have not had an answer to any of the letters.
I said that I am in favour of the Motion, but I have some comments upon the means and methods whereby the Leader of the House has agreed to set up the Select Committee. On the day the Committee was announced by him I happened to be speaking to some senior persons connected with the administration of the House, and they suggested that as I am in my 27th year as a Member, and had quite a lot of knowledge and experience on matters relating to the raising of Questions, I might well be on the Committee. My reply was that I have asked for nothing since I have been in the House and do not want anything, but in any case I did not think it was something I would apply for. Then I was approached by a prominent ex-Minister, who said, "I would imagine, as for three or four years now you have had the honour"—the dubious honour, perhaps— "of being one of the most prominent and persistent questioners, having knowledge and experience of what goes on behind the scenes, you would be on the Committee."
After those two approaches I wrote to the Opposition Chief Whip on 15th December. I cannot read the whole letter as my carbon copy is not clear, but no doubt the Opposition Chief Whip would produce the letter if need be. I wrote:
Dear Bob,
May I make a few statements of fact and then comment on same? I am now approaching the completion of my 27th consecutive year as an M.P. (for one constituency), which I believe does (or should) qualify me as a 'senior Member'. During this period I have only ever once had anything at all from the


Whips' Office (which took about 25 years to achieve) and this was a visit to the troops in Germany. Although I have requested…a little consideration, there has never been any response….
This now leads me to comment on the facts as enumerated herein: During the whole of my period as an M.P. I have been an active and diligent Member, and not what one might refer to as the 'regular absentee'. It is true to say, so I believe, that even my worst enemy (and I well know I have many of such), would have to admit (albeit reluctantly, no doubt), that I have never been an inactive or quiescent Member, and in the knowledge that 'self-praise is no recommendation', nevertheless I feel that I am entitled to boast of my activities with regard to parliamentary Questions in the knowledge that present and past Clerks to the House, Speakers, etc., have stated, privately and publicly, that I have become quite an 'expert', 'mastered the art of questioning', and 'achieved the honour of being…'
the most persistent questioner—
You will of course by now have appreciated the point and purpose of this letter, I hope? Yes, you have guessed correctly, that I wish to apply for membership of the recently announced Select Committee on Questions…
The Opposition Chief Whip sent for me and told me that he had subsequently received other nominations. I will not divulge the confidential part of what he said, but he told me that he would put forward my name. I assumed that he must have done that, because I know him to be a man of his word and, therefore, I was amazed when the Leader of the House announced the names of the hon. Members who were to serve on the Committee, with no opportunity for discussion or amendment. I think the Leader of the House will agree that I could not have amended the Motion because it did not appear on the Order Paper until Thursday of last week, and that I could do nothing other than object if I wanted the matter debated.
I mean no disrespect to any hon. Member whose name appears on the list, but, with the exception of the Father of the House, who I am pleased to see here, not one has had such long or intimate experience on this subject as I have. I know that on Select Committees there must be fair representation, and the maximum number of hon. Members who can serve is 15. I see, however, that only 10 names are included, so five more names could be added if need be.
When I interjected on this matter last week, the Opposition Chief Whip, rather

unkindly, said, "He is only interested because he is not on the Committee." That is right, and I had to object, because there was no other way to raise the matter. In my interjection, I said that the Leader of the House—I apologise to him—must have been responsible, because my right hon. Friend had promised to put my name forward and therefore must have done so. My right hon. Friend then said, "You are not on it and you are not going on it." That surprised me, because although the Opposition Chief Whip can recommend names, the ultimate decision is the Government's.
The Leader of the House is responsible, because he must have had my name and deliberately left it off. I do not know why: I have never asked for anything before. I know that I have a reputation as an awkward Member, and I do not mind but that should not preclude my having the same opportunity as every hon. Member. A previous Deputy Chief Whip once said to me, "As long as you are in politics, you will never get anything." I said to him and I say now—I did not come into politics to get a job or feather my nest. I wanted the opportunity to go on to a Committee and do a job.
No fee or payment is involved here. That is what surprised me. I could have understood it if it were a £10,000 a year job and there was a scramble to get on.
If my right hon. Friend put my name forward, and the Leader of the House left it off, for example, in favour of the Father of the House, I could understand and would willingly give way—

Mr. Robert Mellish: So that we do not get the Leader of the House into any trouble that he does not deserve, perhaps I might put it on record that my hon. Friend's name was never submitted to the Leader of the House. So the right hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to do with the names nominated by the Labour Party.

Mr. Lewis: So the Opposition Chief Whip did not keep his promise to me. He is entitled to break his promise, but having given me this pledge in his office, he should at least have had the decency to say, before this went down, "I am breaking my pledge; I have not put your name forward." I would ask my right hon. Friend what happened between the


date of our interview and the date that the Leader of the House put down the Motion. Is it true that the civil servants, the executive, resent "this chap", who is known as an awkward Member, who probes and causes difficulties? Or was it because the former Government and ex-Ministers thought that I might say or do something that might be rather embarrassing to them?

Mr. Mellish: I intervene again to ensure that civil servants and others are not involved. It so happens that after I saw my hon. Friend I received a number of other names and I was asked to consider them for this appointment. Had my hon. Friend come to see me about it and told me he was upset, I could have explained this to him personally. I would have told him that when this Committee meets it has to take a great deal of evidence.
The fact was in my mind, and it no doubt weighed with me heavily, that one of the people for whom the Committee would send, because it would wish to ask him a lot of questions, would be my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in view of his vast experience, which he has rightly explained, of tabling Parliamentary Questions.
He has great experience in this field. Indeed, on one occasion he tabled no less than 1,500 in one day. I felt that the Committee would, therefore, wish to ask him questions and that it would be better if he were a witness before, rather than a member of, the Committee. As for any honour or glory of being a member of the Committee, I assure my hon. Friend that there was nothing intentional about the decision. Everything was done for what I thought to be the best interests of the House.

Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that explanation, though he will appreciate that he could equally have sent for me, particularly as my letter must have been the first one he got. The announcement was made on the 14th and he got my note on the 15th. He could have written to me saying, "Since I saw you and since making a promise to you, I have received a lot of other letters and I am therefore faced with a difficulty in sorting out the names."
There is room for 15 members, so that another five could have been added—the three and two to keep the balance—and my right hon. Friend could have explained all this to me, because he must have known on the 14th and 15th that any Standing Committee or Select Committee can, before an order is put down, send for persons and papers. Like any hon. Member, I could ask to be received by the Committee, subject to the Chairman agreeing to that course. I could be invited, but there was no need for me to consider that possibility because I had been promised that I would be on the Committee.
My right hon. Friend may have thought that I could discuss the matter with him, but the first I heard of it after being given that promise was last Thursday, when I saw the reference on the Order Paper. My only chance of doing anything at that stage, other than letting it go through on the nod, was to object to it proceeding. If I had not objected then—and it nearly went through today—I would have missed the bus.
If, as my right hon. Friend says, nothing personal was intended, then he could have made representations through those mysterious "usual channels" to get an additional one or two members on the Committee. In this connection, while I need not speak for the Liberal Party, which is represented tonight in the person of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), if the Liberals do not desire to accept a place on the Committee, I might be adopted as the Liberal nominee.
I am not concerned with personalities, be they Ministers past or present. I am here to represent my constituents and I am responsible to them. I represent their interests to the best of my ability. I have looked through the list. I have nothing against any of the hon. Members, some of whom did not enter the House until 1970. I see that they are already on other Committees. Never having been invited or had the opportunity, I should have thought that I could have done good work serving on such a Committee. That is not my comment. It is the comment of people whose names I cannot mention, including ex-Speakers of the House, and people who have had long experience, people who have been in the House for 30 years or more. They have said that


they would have thought that I should have gone on the Committee. I have said that there was no need to worry because I was going on the Committee. It was rather unfortunate that I was not called in.
I apologise again to the Leader of the House because I felt that my name had been put forward and that it was the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip who may have dropped it. If I have thought wrongly, I apologise to the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary. I hope that when these things are arranged in future we might have the opportunity of discussing them and doing it on a better basis than in this instance.

12.2 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I am in a slight difficulty at present. I understood that we were still discussing the Motion and not the Amendment thereto in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). The hon. Member would probably agree that his speech was wholly directed to the Amendment, and as to why his name was left off. I am only too pleased to reply to that, but I am not quite clear as to what particular moment in the procedure we have arrived at. If we have arrived at the Amendment, I should be pleased to reply to the Amendment. It would seem that this is so, but I do not think that the Amendment has been moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The Amendment has not been moved, but it appeared to me that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) was discussing it and it seemed, therefore, that it was convenient to discuss the two things together.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I formally move the words on the Order Paper, Mr. Deputy Speaker? That would cover the point raised by the Leader of the House, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that we must get rid of the first part first, and then the hon. Member will have the opportunity to move the Amendment formally.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: One of my hon. Friends may wish to deal with the general issue. That is why I think that we should come to the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing to stop an hon. Member doing so at this stage, if we discuss the two things together.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: If we are now discussing the general issue and the Amendment, I should like to speak to them both.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on his sacrifice in volunteering to serve on a Committee whose task will be onerous and prolonged. I believe that the House as a whole will be grateful to him for his willingness to put his 26 years of experience at its disposal in dealing with a matter which affects every Member.
I support my hon. Friend's Amendment not simply because I have a high regard for his qualities and for the way in which he has overcome his customary diffidence and modesty in order to present his case and his claims for membership of the Committee, but also because he represents the interests of back benchers and private Members. That is the essential theme and reason why this particular Select Committee has been now nominated and presented to the House.
I was moved when my hon. Friend referred to himself as one who has been described as an awkward Member. That is a term of credit. It is every back bencher's duty to be an awkward Member. It is the duty of every private Member to resist the overweening power of the Executive. The origin of this debate and of the appointment of the Select Committee was precisely because the charge was directed against the Government of rigging private Members' Questions to a Department—not to the detriment of the Opposition as such, but to the detriment of private Members. It is therefore wholly appropriate that this Select Committee should be as representative as possible of the general interests of the House.
I join my hon. Friend in commending the quality of those who have already been nominated to this Committee. I have nothing but praise for the qualifications of those who have been nominated, but


the reason I support the nomination of my hon. Friend is precisely that I regard him as a robust back bencher, one who will certainly see that the interests of back benchers, which he has observed, and in which he has participated for 26 years, are represented.
With respect to my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip, I thought it rather sophistic when he suggested that my hon. Friend, instead of serving on the Committee, might be of more value as a witness. I suggest that the experience of my hon. Friend could be used to even greater advantage on the Committee, not simply in answering questions, but in posing questions.
There is no one in the House who has as much practical experience of challenging the Executive as has my hon. Friend. I do not agree with all that he says. I do not even agree with the manner in which, from time to time, he swamps the Order Paper with Written Questions. Nevertheless, having said that, it is in existing circumstances his right to do so, and it is commendable on his part that he exercises the right of private Members to bother the Executive.
The Leader of the House, to his credit, has always made it clear that he regards this Chamber as the grand forum of debate, the grand forum of inquisition by the private Member of the Executive. He has said that time and again, and he has done everything in his power to ensure that the private Member has the opportunity of questioning the Government and of debating issues of the day in the forum of the Chamber of the House of Commons.
Looking through the admirable names in the Motion, it seems to me that there is a wide spread of back benchers which is not represented, and I cannot help feeling that the prickliness of my hon. Friend—and I hope that he will not treat that description as in any sense pejorative—is something admirable, and something which should be represented on this Committee.
It is well within the memory of some of the older Members of the House that, on the occasion of a famous strike at Covent Garden, my hon. Friend laid down in front of a 6-ton lorry. The effect was dramatic—the lorry backed away—and I cannot help feeling that a private

Member who can bring that kind of weight to a confrontation is one who clearly would be of the greatest value in standing up to the juggernaut of the Executive by presenting himself in his power, whatever the kind of resistance, which surely is what this debate is all about, and what the charge of Question rigging is all about, too.
I support the Amendment, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his courage in presenting it. There are very few hon. Members who would be able to overcome their natural hesitation in attempting to talk about themselves in the manner in which my hon. Friend has done, and which he achieved with great objectivity. What he did was to present in his person the token, the symbol and the expression of the back benches in order to assert that the usual channels are not simply to enter into a private confluence in order to make great decisions of this kind which affect the rights of private Members. It is not good enough for the usual channels to enter into their subterranean channels and come out after a murky journey with some conclusion which may well be hostile to the interests of private Members.
So I join with my hon. Friend in that defence of the private Members which is essentially at the origin of the decision to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the method and system of Question Time. The Leader of the House will recognise that Question Time is the last bastion of the private Member of Parliament. It is the only opportunity, with respect to the Chair, when a private Member has the absolute right to make himself heard; when even if his question is not answered orally he can at least make sure that he will get a reply from Ministries and Ministers.
It is in that sense that this debate is of the utmost importance. I regret deeply that the choice of members has been so limited. I regret that in a sense these choices are traditionally made in a hugger-mugger fashion. But tonight I think it right that we private Members should assert very firmly that a decision of this kind which affects the fundamental and basic right of the back bencher should not be taken in some sort of conclave between the Whips on this side, and the Whips and the Leader of the House on that side.
This is a matter which affects private Members, and I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on having raised it. I believe that in so doing he has rendered yet another service to the House.

12.12 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) has made some statements about the value of Question Time to back benchers which would be widely agreed in the House. It is because of the need to do everything we can to ensure that Question Time lives up to the very high reputation it has outside the House and in many countries that it is right that a Select Committee of the sort now proposed should be set up and inquire into the matter. I do not think that there is any dispute about the importance of Question Time and the need to ensure that it is used to the very best advantage. I agree entirely on behalf of back benchers, because it is their occasion.
The hon. Member went into some discussion of the merits of the various hon. Members who might be on the Committee. He suggested that it was advisable for those on the Committee to have weight. He seemed then to suggest that the weight would be valuable in order to stop lorries running over them at various stages. Some members of the Committee would certainly have the weight, but I doubt whether they would have been able to stop the lorries to quite the same extent as the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) apparently did on a previous occasion.
However, to return to the serious point involved, once it was decided—and, I think, widely accepted in the House—that such a Select Committee should be appointed, it was necessary to decide the size of the Committee. For myself, I believed that a Committee of limited size was right, because it will no doubt be necessary for it to take, as the Opposition Chief Whip said, evidence from a wide variety of people, and to have considerable discussion and consideration of a most important problem which is obviously put before us—indeed, the whole question of how Question Time

should be best organised in the interests of the House as a whole. Therefore, a limited Committee was, in my judgment, right. Once that was decided, the normal procedures followed.
The Opposition Chief Whip has been very fair in setting out the position from his point of view. Having occupied that job in the past, I confirm that the Government of the day suggest a particular number for the Select Committee and it then suggests how many Members should be provided by the Opposition, after which the Opposition nominates which Members should serve on the Committee. That is the accepted procedure, and that was exactly the procedure that was followed on this occasion. It could be argued that there should be a larger Committee, though I would be against that because I believe that a limited Committee of this sort of size is, on the whole, right in these circumstances.
Therefore, I must rest on the fact that the Opposition were asked to submit the names of those whom they wished to serve on this Committee, and they did so. The name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North, was not so selected. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) has said, that the hon. Member for West Ham, North, has considerable knowledge in this House—indeed, more than I have—and more knowledge of Question Time. I fully accept that. Nevertheless, the system that has always been followed was followed. I do not think that, because of this, the hon. Gentleman's considerable knowledge will necessarily be lost to the Committee. But I suggest that, having followed the normal procedures, having proposed to set up a Select Committee which I believe the whole House wants, this was the right way to go about it. Therefore, I hope the House will endorse the proposal and, indeed, the names which have been put forward.
I make no complaint of the fact that the hon. Member for West Ham, North, has thought fit to raise this matter or, indeed, that he has been supported by the hon. Member for Coventry, North. They are absolutely within their rights. But I do claim that if Select Committees are to be set up, the established procedure is the best way of doing it and, on the whole, best serves the interests of this


House. On that basis, I hope the House will now accept this Motion.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I would have been prepared, as I think many other hon. Members would have been ready, to let the proposition go through without a debate, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has properly said, hon. Members have a right to debate these questions if they wish and, therefore, when they do debate them I think it is right that we should give our views.
I make no comment on the selection of individual persons or the accusations that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), except to say that I have absolute confidence in what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as to the circumstances in which he dealt with the matter. I have no doubt that he has faithfully told the House what occurred and what was the situation. Everybody who knows my right hon. Friend knows that to be the case.
Of course, it is always invidious to select Members for different Committees. It is not an easy task. But I think that it was all the more difficult in this case, in the sense that it was thought advisable to have a small Committee.
I wish to intervene in the debate mainly because of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). He seems to suggest that there has been some secret arrangement or secret deal between the Front Benches in the setting up of this Committee. I assure my hon. Friend that nothing of the sort occurred. It would be quite improper for any such deal or arrangement to be made, especially about a matter of this kind, namely, a consideration of Question Time, a matter of paramount interest to hon. Members on both sides, and back benchers in particular.
Certainly, I would not be a party to any deal for the convenience of the Front Benches at the expense of the back benches, and particularly on a matter of this kind. It would be most reprehensible, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North that nothing of the sort has occurred. I hope that he

will, therefore, be able to sleep happily in his bed, having heard that assurance.
I give the assurance all the more strongly in view of the origin of this proposal, which was the highly controversial topic of the planting of Questions. This is one of the matters which will have to be investigated. Nothing could be further from our thoughts than the idea that that matter will be overlooked when the Committee begins its work. That was the origin of it, and it is one of the matters which will have to be investigated most carefully. But there are other issues concerning Questions which have to be examined, and it was thought reasonable that they should be examined by a Committee of this nature in the same process and at the same time as we had our discussion and investigation into the planting of Questions. But I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North, and anyone else who is interested, that those of us who have been appointed to the Committee from this side of the House regard that as one of the most prominent matters which we are determined to have investigated. That is not a secret deal between one side and the other. It is a determination on the part of those of us here, and perhaps hon. Members opposite will be equally eager to investigate the matter; we shall have to discover that. But, certainly, we have been party to no secret deal on the matter of planted Questions. We want a Committee of the whole House to see that it is properly investigated.
I feel that it is improper to suggest—if my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North or anyone else suggests it—that this will be a Committee not properly representative of the back benches. One has but to look at the list of names. There are hon. Members there who have figured prominently in our debates, many of them distinguished back benchers, and still back benchers. The Father of the House is the most distinguished back bencher of all, in one sense. He is to be a member of the Committee. He has upheld the rights of back benchers throughout his whole political career, so far as I know, except for the brief interval when he was a Minister—and I do not suppose that that altered his view of the matter. I trust that it did not.
I do not think that anyone who knows anything about the House of Commons


will say that the list of names proposed shows a membership which has been packed for the convenience of the Front Benches. Nothing of the sort has occurred. It would be scandalous, particularly on a matter of this kind, if there were any attempt by the Front Benches to interfere with the absolute determination to investigate these matters to the full.

Mr. Edelman: My hon. Friend suggests that I am attributing improper motives to those who constituted the Committee. I hope that, on reflection, he will consider that that suggestion is itself improper. It is a judgment, which may be wrong; but to describe it as improper is really to attribute a motive which is certainly not present.

Mr. Foot: All I am saying is that, if the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North had been left without comment by those who were partly responsible, whether from this side or that, it might have been supposed that we accepted the implication or inference of what he said. Whether he stated it or not, there was a strong inference that there had been some kind of collusion between the two Front Benches on the matter. I assure him that nothing of the sort has occurred. Responsibility for the Labour members on the Committee rests with the Labour side and responsibility for the nomination of those on the other side of the House rests with the Government. There has been no hint or suggestion of collusion of any sort between the two sides. There are bound to be controversial issues in the investigation precisely because of the origin of the investigation—the discontent in the House about the planting of Questions. Many other matters will come into the discussion which will be for the Committee to decide.
This Committee like other Select Committees will report to the House of Commons and the House will retain full authority over the whole matter. So nothing will be done about Questions to interfere with the rights of back benchers without back benchers having absolute control over the matter. It will not be within the power of this Select Committee, any more than any other, to impose its will on back

benchers. So I repudiate entirely, whether my hon. Friend intended to make it or not, what I took to be the inference in his remarks that in some way the rights of back benchers are being undermined, interfered with or not respected by the way the Committee is constituted. The exact opposite is the case. The Committee has been established to vindicate and sustain the rights of back benchers in respect of Questions. It will ensure that their rights shall not be undermined by the planting of Questions by Ministers in a manner that is considered reprehensible and also will consider the other protections that are required for back benchers.
So far from back benchers seeing this Committee as something which should be criticised, it is a move which can only be beneficial for them in putting their Questions, in protecting their time and their rights. When this Select Committee reports, back benchers of either side—even my hon. Friend may have overcome his sceptical mood by then—will have the opportunity to judge. Some hon. Members do not appreciate that all Committees are required to report to the House and this is one of the major protections of the rights of back benchers.
Far from apologising in any sense for the establishment of this Committee, I believe that every back bencher should welcome it as a sign that we are determined to prevent any infringement of their rights at Question Time and, if possible, to enhance and extend their power to question the Executive.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: I had not intended to intervene in this debate but at one point the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) referred to the absence of any Liberal Member on the Committee. For the sake of the record I make it clear that no request was made to the Government for a Liberal to be present on the Select Committee. To ask for a Member on every Select Committee would place an intolerable burden on a small party. In fairness the present Administration and that which preceded it have always been extremely generous in considering requests from the Liberal Party, as and when the occasion has arisen, for the appointment


of a Member to Select or Standing Committees. That is a happy arrangement which has worked reasonably well and has overcome the difficulty of ensuring that no minority is neglected while not imposing an unreasonable burden on the minority party in the House.
The fact that we do not have a Member on this Committee does not mean that we do not have any interest in the matter. The fact that I am here at this hour indicates that we do. But, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, we all have a duty not only to watch what the Select Committee does, but to receive its report and comment on it, and we will certainly do that.
I do not wish to comment on the selection of individual Members, for I believe that to be more correctly a dispute within a party and not particularly a matter for the whole House. Indeed, it would be a dangerous precedent if the Government altered names submitted to it. It would create a difficult and unusual situation for the future. Perhaps this matter could have been dealt with more appropriately at a weekly meeting of the Labour Party. It might have been placed on the agenda and we could have got on with appointing the Select Committee.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North made the interesting suggestion that he should represent our interests on the Committee, and I am deeply touched by his offer. His own Chief Whip might like to arrange a transfer, but from our point of view it would have to be very large. Seriously, while I appreciate his point of view, I want to put on record that we welcome the setting up of the Committee, and the fact that we are not represented is largely of our own choosing.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move, That Mr. Arthur Lewis be another Member of the Committee.
I have made my point and I will not detain the House. In view of his assistance and the way in which he has granted an hour for this debate, may I assure the Leader of the House that there is nothing personal in the Amendment, which was moved as a means of getting

the facts on the record? May I explain to the Liberal Chief Whip that this was the only way? The matter arose last Thursday and raising it at the party meeting would have been too late, and so I had to object. I had to propose the Amendment in order to get a debate.
May I explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), the shadow Leader of the House, that, although I may be able to give evidence to the Select Committee I shall not be able to prod and probe and question witnesses; nor shall I be able to do so when the report comes before the House.
However, having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Robert Redmond, Sir Robin Turton, and Mr. William Whitelaw were nominated other members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That Four be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

Orders of the Day — WHITEHALL AND PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCTS

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I make no apology, even at this late hour, for raising the subject of the future of Whitehall and the precincts of Parliament. There is immense public interest in the matter and great concern and interest in the House. I have today been asked to make three broadcasts on the subject, all of which I declined because I wanted to hear the outcome of this debate.
I could have initiated a long and far-reaching debate on the Consolidated Fund before Christmas, when I won second place, with the support of many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House.
After studying the replies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment I decided to defer until now what will regrettably be a brief, exploratory exchange with the Government,


leading I hope to some wise, firm and far-reaching decisions in the not-too-distant future. I shall seek to return to these matters in a month or two by which time the Government will probably have made up their mind.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have long interested ourselves in the future of this part of our capital; indeed we were jointly concerned in opposition with some of our hon. and right hon. Friends in raising this subject. I know that I have his interest and cooperation in getting things moving towards the right decision. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who is the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on this subject, has exhausted himself in the public interest in Europe this weekend and is unfortunately unable to be with us at this late hour, but he authorises me to associate him with the sentiments I have expressed about moving towards a right decision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who has also been much concerned in Europe this weekend and is a major figure in the European scene, authorises me to say that he retracts not a word from what he said at the public inquiry. I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) in what I am trying to achieve.
I express, too, this evening the sentiments of the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society, the S.P.A.B., the Civic Trust, the British Tourist Authority and the unanimous view of all those in the party groups in my party concerned with environmental matters, of one of which I have the privilege to be chairman. I am happy to see two of my hon. Friends here this evening in support of me, and I hope that they will intervene in a moment, because I know of their concern with particular aspects of this problem.
For nearly 15 years I have served on the Services Committee of this House, where slow and often painful progress has resulted in some improvements in conditions for hon. Members. We have been much concerned with the far wider issue of the whole future of the parliamentary area. A great deal has been achieved since the war. We have seen

the restoration of Downing Street, the restoration of Barry's Treasury and the exposure of part of the Tudor Palace contained therein. We have seen public Recess restored—and its use for proper purposes—to the Banqueting House, due so substantially to the continuous efforts of hon. Members who now sit on the other side of the House. I am happy to see the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) present. His hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) spent many years in this battle, together with some of us, and at last we have seen the Banqueting House restored to its proper use.
There has been the repair of the Admiralty House complex, which took a great deal of time; completion of the Ministry of Defence, which was still uncompleted when I arrived at Westminster; and the progressive cleaning and repair of much more. Dealing with the Ministry of Defence, I should mention the Henry VIII wine cellar, restored and I believe bodily moved out of the way of the present new building. It used to be accessible to the public. Perhaps for security reasons it cannot be so now, and I hope that my hon. Friend will say something cheerful about that. It is a most interesting building.
The progressive cleaning and repair of much more of Whitehall and area gives us heart. I see that a further candidate for cleaning—indeed the scaffolding is round part of it now—is the Home Office. We are very pleased to see that, for a good reason to which I will refer later. There has been the widest possible public debate about the future of the whole area. We have had a public inquiry, the results of which we await. A cautious approach is better than a hurried or dramatic and possibly wrong decision, but there are limits. I would also venture to suggest that architects work better within the discipline of an existing landscape and that the "clean sweep" method is not always the best solution. The time surely has now come to take another cautious step forward.
We must preserve the best, brought up to date where necessary for modern use, and replace the worn-out with well-mannered newcomers. I emphasise "well-mannered newcomers". The new parliamentary building, yet to be unveiled even in model form—and I am sure


that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will make it clear that if the House likes none of the designs, we need have none of them—should do just that: it should be a well-mannered newcomer.
On the preservation side, which has caused very great public interest and concern, I first mention Richmond Terrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who was with us this evening, has put down many Questions and is much concerned about this, as are all hon. Members who are interested in environmental problems.
My case for Richmond Terrace is simply that because its preservation would preserve the human scale of that part of Whitehall, it should be fought for. There are many arguments against keeping it—for example, cost or that it is only grade this or that—but it would preserve the scale of that area and prevent another concrete cliff being erected against the Ministry of Defence. Its use might be varied. Residences were suggested at the public inquiry. These would not cost anything like as much as bringing it up to the standards of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act.
Next, the original Norman Shaw part of Scotland Yard. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has some useful observations to make about the state of the interior. I do not know whether he would care to intervene.

Mr. James Allason: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is interesting that the interior of the building is judged to be so bad by the Civil Service that it is unfit for use, at least as regards the inward-facing rooms. They would be absolute palaces, however, compared with the accommodation used for Members of Parliament. It would be rather attractive if we were allowed to go in there and make use of an otherwise useless building.

Mr. Cooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It merely points to the fact that many of these buildings which are condemned by some could be put to perfectly good use by others.
Further up Whitehall is Whitehall Court. This building has gathered friends as the years have gone by. It has been beautifully cleaned and I hope

that it is safe in private hands. If it is not suitably listed, I hope that it will be.
Perhaps the Welsh Office, a distinguished building which, I believe, was called the Whitehall Club and designed by Octavius Parnell, might be combined with some new buildings in the Scotland Yard area.
One comes next to Middlesex Guildhall as a threatened building. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) has some views about this and I believe that he has served in some of the courts there and finds them quite adequate.

Mr. Ernle Money: I hope that neither my hon. Friend nor the House will cast any kind of imperialistic eye towards that building, which at present is maintaining no fewer than six Members of this honourable House in full-time work from the Point of view of being the biggest court in London occupied on the longest case. One point on which my hon. Friend might wish to cast his attention is that it is now in use as a Crown court and that the upper floors, which would serve perfectly for Crown court offices, are being used not for the benefit of the court but merely by the Greater London Council for nothing at all. It is a subject of great concern.

Mr. Cooke: I fear that "being used by so-and-so for nothing at all" can apply to quite a lot of the accommodation in Whitehall. I know that the Government have it in mind to sort things out but this great reorganisation of Government Departments which has been going on for so long must be brought to a crisp conclusion before many months elapse.
I hope that the Church Commissioners' building, which would have been wiped out by the Martin-Buchanan scheme, is safe.
If it is not listed, it certainly should be.
I have taken hon. Members round the perimeter of Parliament Square and mentioned the buildings in Whitehall with which we are much concerned but I now come to the cream. The Foreign Office, the Home Office, the India Office and Bryden's Treasury were all to have been wiped out by the Martin-Buchanan


scheme. It would be criminal to destroy this group of buildings. Even Bryden's Treasury, that last great imperial building finished, I believe, just before the First World War, is magnificent when viewed from a reasonable distance.
Here I come on to the suggestion that we should commit ourselves now to demolish all the buildings along Great George Street opposite that building. They are largely—I nearly got carried away; they are somewhat an undistinguished group. I had better put it that way. There is one ancient house there, but it would collapse if the others were taken down. Bryden's Treasury, viewed from the new Parliament Square, is magnificent. I should not have to defend the Foreign Office. There is not a person of any susceptibility with any taste who has willingly allowed that the Foreign Office should be destroyed. We must take some of the bodies out of the building. There are slum conditions there in part, largely self-created; but if the personnel in this group of buildings were reorganised there is no reason why we should not keep them all.
There are two places in Parliament Square which should be rebuilt. Storey's Gate should be down for redevelopment, perhaps as Government offices or other offices, but it should be done in a style more in keeping with the dignity of the site. Abbey House is still in private hands. I feel that the private owners would be delighted to redevelop it if they were given the go-ahead. The stopper put on the whole area has prevented something worthwhile from going up there. What is to replace Queen Anne's Mansions, the ugliest building in the district? Perhaps the Government could take a few offices there; it might get them out of some of their difficulties in reorganising their Departments. Why the delay? Reorganising Departments of State has gone on throughout history. The Department of the Environment has moved out of part of the Treasury building. It used to be called the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I wonder who has moved in. I am prepared to bet that it is something to do with the Home Office. The Home Office must learn to live in this area with its partner and neighbour, the Foreign Office, and all that goes with it. Somebody must make a decision.
I have the impression that there has been a kind of war going on between these two Departments. Wholesale demolition and the erection of a vast excrescence on the other side of Whitehall was the only solution to which they would agree. The Department of the Environment has been put in Marsham Street—in one of the beastliest new buildings we have had to set eyes on. It is an eminently civilised Department, and it is good for those in it to have to live with the ugliness that other civilised people often have to look at.
I do not wish to get deeply involved in the row, if row it be, between the Foreign Office and the Home Department, but somewhere in the activities of those two Departments lies the solution, and perhaps a gentle shove, or a hard shove, from us would do some good. If it is discovered that that is the difficulty, I do not suppose my hon. Friend will say much about it now, but there would be great support in the House for any move to sort it out.
There is just time for me to say something about Parliament Square and the traffic which must be removed from the Square—one might say "at all costs", but we must be realistic. The tunnel past the Terrace did not meet with much approval. The large, heavy traffic should be kept out of the area by the use of ring routes; but what about the necessary traffic which is bound to pass through the area? We are always told that the underground railway is in the way of anything that we might want to do. I wonder. It might be possible to sink the underground railway deeper and to have road tunnels where it is now, or to swing it further away from Parliament Square under the edge of the park. Then it would be possible to take all the traffic from the park, Victoria Street and that which goes along Millbank and the traffic down Whitehall underground before it reaches Parliament Square. There could be an underground roundabout under the middle linked with the new car park in New Palace Yard and Abingdon Street. Vehicles should not be allowed to despoil the landscape and to ruin it for the tourists.
Nobody has suggested this. I think that it is a new idea of mine, and perhaps my hon. Friend will think about it or tell the Minister about it, because obviously


something must be done to get rid of the majority of the traffic.
Horseferry Road was a route abandoned by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) when Minister of Works. That was most regrettable. We should keep what is left of Horseferry Road as a relief route.
No doubt we can keep a lot of traffic out of the square by diverting it in that direction, although it may not be possible now to make it into a major highway. If we could keep as a pedestrian precinct the whole of Parliament Square and parts of Whitehall, what a marvellous place it would be!
The need for this hardly needs arguing. The area is the heart of the Commonwealth. It has come to be what it is as a result of centuries of growth. It has never been a stagnant area. Each generation has for good reasons made its changes. In this age two new factors have emerged—the increasing and worldwide interest in this historic place and the overwhelming amount of traffic which daily pounds its way through. Neither of these problems has received proper thought or attention.
Tourism tends to pollute unless proper facilities are provided for it. A fine walkabout area is what we need in Parliament Square, free of the appalling, killing traffic.
We might think for a moment of the very poor conditions in which the public are received at the Houses of Parliament. In connection with the new parliamentary building, we may be able to do something. There are rooms—I do not mean the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association room, which should certainly be kept close to Westminster—which could be well turned into a parliamentary exhibition hall and used to allow the public to see in comfort the proceedings of the House relayed. This would do a great deal to present Parliament to the people at large. It would be possible adjoining Westminster Hall when we have the new Parliamentary building.
There is growing public and parliamentary pressure for action in the whole field. The new parliamentary building will not just help Members of Parliament. That is a small part of what it will do compared with all the other things. It is

high time we settled for the foreseeable future the fate of what we feel should be preserved and enhanced. I stress "enhanced". It is no good preserving this or that unless we can enhance the whole environment, and the newcomers—wellmannered newcomers—must fill the gaps. The environment in which we and the buildings that serve us can live happily together should now be improved. We must settle the future of Whitehall and Parliament Square for the end of this century and into the next.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I shall speak for only a few moments, to say how strongly I support everything the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said. Obviously he could have spoken for an hour, with all the material he had, and if he had done so I should still have supported everything he said.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Foreign Office. I am still in some confusion about the prospects for the Foreign Office. We were told at one time that successive Governments have taken a firm decision that it must be demolished, though at another time we heard that perhaps it was being thought about again. It is the most marvellous building. If the forecourt could be cleared of vehicles and there could be an underground car park and perhaps a fountain there, as in a piazza in Rome, it would be the most beautiful entrance to a Government building. Inside, the main staircase and the Foreign Secretary's room are magnificent and should never be destroyed.. Can the Minister clear up what exactly is intended for the Foreign Office now?
Secondly, on the general point about the proposed scheme, the threatened demolition of the Norman Shaw building and Richmond Terrace, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) about the time it has taken to announce a decision. One can always say that this is an important decision and therefore it must take 18 months or a year to announce, but this has gone on for an awful long time. Will the hon. Gentleman make an announcement tonight on this and on the future of the Foreign Office?

12.55 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): All of us who are interested in the problems of Whitehall, Parliament and the surrounding buildings are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for his continuing interest and for the many times on which he has raised the matter, often supported by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). I am also glad to see my hon. Friends who are here tonight.
What has been said in this debate will be noted and considered by the Government before any decisions are taken. I accept what the hon. Member for Barking said about the delay in announcing the Government's conclusion on the Willis Report. It is an extremely complicated subject and it is absolutely crucial to get the right answer.
As the House knows, in 1965 our predecessors accepted the Martin/Buchanan plan as a broad framework for future development. I will skip the history, in view of the short time in which I have to reply, but as a result of the deputation led by the present Duke of Grafton early in 1970, the previous Administration decided to set up a public inquiry into the aspect of the development particularly concerned with the New Scotland Yard Site and the proposed demolition of Richmond Terrace and the Norman Shaw (North) building. Mr. Harold Willis, Q.C., was appointed as the inspector to hold the inquiry. The General Election intervened between the appointment of the inspector and the date scheduled for the inquiry, but my right hon. Friend decided that the inquiry should go ahead as we believed it would help us to achieve a better understanding of the issues involved.
At the inquiry much of the evidence was directed towards the merits of the historic buildings on the site, particularly Richmond Terrace and the Norman Shaw (North) building, which both hon. Members have mentioned. The need for the inquiry arose from the central dilemma in all redevelopment of historic areas.
I think we are all agreed that there are many buildings in the Whitehall area which must be retained. Who in their right minds would suggest that we should destroy Westminster Abbey, the Palace of Westminster and its precincts, the Ban-

queting House and many other buildings in this area? My right hon. Friend intends to publish the inspector's report and to make a statement on the future of this site at the earliest possible date as soon as a decision has been reached. I acknowledge and accept the criticism that my right hon. Friends and I have not been quick in reaching a decision, but it is absolutely essential that we get this decision right. Whatever we decide will affect the appearance of this part of London for at least a century and maybe more ahead.
All I can say tonight about that—the House will appreciate that I am in some difficulty in answering at this stage—is that my right hon. Friends will carefully note the views that have been expressed on both sides of the House during this debate.

Mr. Driberg: The Foreign Office?

Mr. Channon: I will deal briefly with the Foreign Office by referring the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 27th October, 1971, in which he said that we were considering the problem in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As soon as we have anything further to say I will ask my right hon. Friend to communicate with the hon. Gentleman. I note the views which have been expressed by him and by my hon. Friend on this occasion and on earlier occasions.
To return to Richmond Terrace, it is essential that anything we do on the site should harmonise with the proposed parliamentary building which will be erected at the southern end of the Government site. The Government statement on Willis and Martin should not be too long delayed. As soon as it is possible to make a statement it will be made in the House.
My right hon. Friend announced on 10th December that the winning design in the parliamentary competition had been selected by the assessors, but that he was postponing, on their advice, making an announcement and publishing their report until the seven final stage designs with appropriate models could be exhibited in a way which enabled the layman to appreciate the competing designs. I hope that, in the next few weeks, a statement will be made about the exhibition. After it is over, my right hon.
Friend will wish to discuss further steps with the Services Committee.
As for roads, I know that the House attaches particular importance to the solution of the traffic problem, particularly in Bridge Street. My right hon. Friend hopes to submit to the Services Committee shortly a further report by a working party composed of experts from the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, but I cannot encourage hopes of a quick or easy solution.
We all accept that this area is important. Crucial decisions must be taken shortly about the future of many of the buildings. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his references, particularly on other occasions, to the stone cleaning and the general attempt to improve Whitehall. There will be much more stone cleaning. Some has now taken place experimentally in the Palace of Westminster. Three bays on the south facade have been cleaned in different ways. I intend to have notices displayed shortly, so that hon. Members and others can decide which they prefer. Then, in consultation with the Services Committee, my right hon. Friend will decide how best to proceed with the cleaning which most hon. Members want to see.
There is at the moment public access to the Henry VIII wine cellar, without charge, on Saturday afternoons. If hon. Members who want this extended will contact me, I will consider their representations. It is difficult to arrange in working hours, because it is part of the Ministry of Defence.
All these proposals—the removal of traffic from Bridge Street, the new parking arrangements for New Palace Yard and the stone cleaning—will be put to the Services Committee, I hope before

Easter. They will be considered by my right hon. Friends, and hon. Members, through the Committee, will have the opportunity to consider them.
My hon. Friend has raised with me privately what should happen in New Palace Yard above the new car park. We want the landscaping and so on to fit in with the new parliamentary building.
I apologise for not giving substantive answers to some of these questions, but everything said in the debate will be carefully considered by the Government before decisions are taken. They will be taken in the near future and a statement will be made to the House. A statement on other matters will be made to the Services Committee, I hope before the Easter Recess.
I can assure the House that my right hon. Friends are determined to maintain the essential quality of this area. To use my hon. Friend's words, with which I entirely agree, everything must be done not only to preserve the area but to enhance its beauty, so that we can hand down to future generations an even better environment for this area than we have been fortunate enough to inherit ourselves. I note my hon. Friend's continuing interest and that of the House in what is an important matter to all hon. Members who have the honour to serve in this palace.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes past One o'clock.